THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
AN  OBSOLETE  SHIBBOLETH 


BOOKS  BY  HIRAM  BINGHAM 


ACROSS  SOUTH  AMERICA 

8~vo.  Cloth  binding.  405  pages.  Index.  80 
illustrations.  Map.  Price  $3.50  net;  post- 
age 21  cents  extra. 

JOURNAL  OF  AN  EXPEDITION 

ACROSS  VENEZUELA   &  COLOMBIA 

1906-1907 

8vo.  Cloth  binding.  Leather  label.  287 
pages.  Index.  133  illustrations.  Map.  Price 
$2.25  net ;  postage  18  cents  extra. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

AN  OBSOLETE  SHIBBOLETH 

BY 

HIRAM  BINGHAM 


NEW  HAVEN  :  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON  :  HUMPHREY   MILFORD 

OXFORD   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

MDCCCCXIII 


COPYRIGHT,  1913,  BY  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

FIRST  PRINTED  AUGUST,  1913 
ONE  THOUSAND  FIVE  HUNDRED  COPIES 

REPRINTED  OCTOBER,  1913 
ONE  THOUSAND  COPIES 


D.  B.  UPDIKE,  THE  MERRYMOUNT  PRESS,  BOSTON 


LIBRARY 

UMVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
8AJVTA  BARBARA 


TO 

THE  RIGHT  HONOURABLE 

JAMES  BRYCE 

IN  GRATEFUL  RECOGNITION 

OF  THE  INSPIRATION 

WHICH  HAS  COME 

FROM  HIS 
FRIENDSHIP  AND  COUNSEL 


PREFACE 

FOR  the  past  five  years  I  have  felt  that  con- 
ditions in  South  America  were  such  that  we 
ought  to  adopt  a  new  foreign  policy.  In  1908 
I  learned  how  strongly  and  with  how  much 
reason  the  people  of  Argentina  and  Chile 
detested  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Two  years 
ago,  in  "Across  South  America,"  I  ven- 
tured to  say:  "On  mature  consideration  it 
does  seem  as  though  the  justification  for  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  both  in  its  original  and  its 
present  form  had  passed." 

In  lecturing  on  the  relations  between 
South  America  and  the  United  States,  and 
in  conversation  with  public  men  incidental 
to  four  journeys  in  the  Southern  continent, 
the  importance  of  securing  general  recog- 
nition of  the  obsolete  character  of  this  na- 
tional shibboleth  has  been  borne  in  on  me. 
When  the  Editor  of  the '  'Atlantic  Monthly' ' 
asked  me  to  put  my  ideas  into  the  form  of 
an  essay  I  welcomed  the  opportunity. 

The  cordial  response  to  that  article  is  so 

C  vii  ] 


PREFACE 

significant  of  a  decided  change  in  public 
opinion  that  it  has  seemed  worth  while  to 
present  herewith,  in  more  extended  form 
than  has  been  hitherto  possible,  the  reasons 
for  my  belief.  Naturally,  this  is  not  the  place 
for  an  exhaustive  treatise.  The  historical 
aspect  alone  might  fill  several  volumes. 

What  has  been  attempted  is  to  sketch 
the  growth  of  the  Doctrine,  to  indicate  the 
obligations  and  disadvantages  it  entails, 
and,  more  particularly,  to  portray  the  atti- 
tude toward  it,  and  toward  us,  of  our  neigh- 
bors to  the  south.  I  have  also  suggested, 
very  briefly,  the  outlines  of  a  new  foreign 
policy.  It  is  evident  that  the  problems  which 
are  likely  to  arise  in  the  future  will  require 
something  more  than  the  mere  negation  of 

outgrown  doctrines. 

HIRAM  BINGHAM 

June,  1913. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 
PREFACE  vii 

THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  3 

APPENDIX  115 

INDEX  147 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
AN   OBSOLETE  SHIBBOLETH 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
Jt 

14  ^  I  ^HE  American  continents,  by  the  free 
JL  and  independent  condition  which 
"they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are 
; '  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  sub- 
jects for  future  colonization  by  European 
"  powers.  .  .  .  We  should  consider  any  at- 
tempt on  their  part  to  extend  their  system 
"  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dan- 
"  gerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the 
' '  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any 
"  European  power,  we  have  not  interfered 
"  and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  gov- 
' '  ernments  who  have  declared  their  inde- 
pendence, and  maintained  it,  and  whose 
independence  we  have,  on  great  consid- 
"  eration,  and  on  just  principles,  acknow- 
k<  ledged,  we  could  not  view  any  interposi- 
"  tion  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them, 
"  or  controlling,  in  any  other  manner,  their 
"  destiny,  by  any  European  power,  in  any 
"  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an 
"  unfriendly  disposition  towards  the  United 
"States.  .  .  ." 

3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Thus,  in  1823,  did  President  James  Mon- 
roe, acting  under  the  influence  of  his  able 
Secretary  of  State,  John  Quincy  Adams, 
enunciate  a  doctrine  which  has  been  the 
most  universally  accepted  foreign  policy 
that  we  have  ever  had.  No  one  questions  the 
fact  that  the  enunciation  of  this  policy  of 
"America  for  Americans,"  and  our  firm 
adherence  to  it  for  so  many  years,  has  had 
a  very  decided  effect  upon  the  history  of  the 
western  hemisphere. 

In  the  trenchant  words  of  Mr.  Root: '  *  The 
famous  declaration  of  Monroe  arrayed  the 
organized  and  rapidly  increasing  power  of 
the  United  States  as  an  obstacle  to  European 
interference  and  made  it  forever  plain  that 
the  cost  of  European  aggression  would  be 
greater  than  any  advantage  which  could 
be  won  even  by  successful  aggression. 

'  That  great  declaration  was  not  the 
chance  expression  of  the  opinion  or  the  feel- 
ing of  the  moment ;  it  crystallized  the  senti- 
ment for  human  liberty  and  human  rights 
which  has  saved  American  idealism  from 
the  demoralization  of  narrow  selfishness, 
and  has  given  to  American  democracy  its 

[*] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

true  world  power  in  the  virile  potency  of  a 
great  example.  It  responded  to  the  instinct 
of  self-preservation  in  an  intensely  practical 
people." 

Its  significance  was  immediately  recog- 
nized in  Europe.  As  early  as  January  13, 
1824,  an  Austrian  counsellor  of  state  com- 
mented on  the  Doctrine  as  follows :  ' '  The 
message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
is  an  epoch-making  act  in  the  history  of  our 
times.  Every  line  of  it  deserves  to  be  con- 
sidered with  the  most  earnest  attention.  Not 
only  the  present  attitude  of  that  mighty  and 
productive  federation  towards  Europe,  but 
also  the  relation  of  both  American  continents 
to  the  Old  World  are  here  enunciated  with 
a  clarity  and  a  precision  which  end  all  doubts 
and  duplicities.  [See  Appendix  I.] 

*  The  separation  of  America  from  Eu- 
rope has  been  completed  irrevocably.  If  the 
re-conquest  of  the  colonies  on  the  continent 
or  their  voluntary  return  to  the  old  rule  had 
not  already  become  impossible,  this  oppo- 
sition of  the  North  American  people,  which 
has  so  long  been  developed  and  which  has 
only  now  been  openly  declared  would  alone 

c  6 : 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

be  sufficient  to  banish  all  thoughts  of  it." 
There  have  been  times  when  ambitious 
European  monarchs  would  have  liked  noth- 
ing better  than  to  help  themselves  to  poorly 
defended  territory  in  what  is  now  termed 
Latin  America.  When  the  Doctrine  was  ori- 
ginated, the  Holy  Alliance  in  Europe  was 
contemplating  the  overthrow  of  republican 
government  in  Spain,  and  unquestionably 
looked  with  extreme  aversion  at  the  new 
republics  in  South  and  Central  America, 
whose  independence  we  were  then  engaged 
in  recognizing.  Russia  was  reaching  out  be- 
yond Alaska.  The  firm  declaration  of  this 
policy  of  exclusion,  backed  up  by  England's 
attitude  toward  the  Holy  Alliance,  undoubt- 
edly operated  to  give  the  American  repub- 
lics sufficient  breathing-space  to  enable  them 
to  get  on  their  feet  and  begin  the  difficult 
process  of  working  out  their  own  salva- 
tion,— a  process  which  was  rendered  all  the 
more  difficult  by  reason  of  Hispanic  racial 
tendencies,  of  centuries  of  autocratic  colo- 
nial government,  and  of  geographical  condi- 
tions which  made  transportation  and  social 
intercourse  extremely  arduous. 

ce  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Journeys  across  Peru  even  to-day  may  be 
beset  with  more  difficulties  than  were  jour- 
neys from  Missouri  to  California  sixty  years 
ago,  before  the  railroads.  It  still  takes  longer 
to  go  from  Lima,  the  capital  of  Peru,  to  Iqui- 
tos,  the  capital  of  Peru's  largest  province, 
and  one  which  the  Putumayo  atrocities  have 
recendy  brought  vividly  to  our  notice,  than 
it  does  to  go  from  London  to  Honolulu. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
the  American  republics  would  have  found  it 
very  much  more  difficult  to  maintain  their 
independence  during  the  first  three-quarters 
of  a  century  of  their  career.  And  this  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  actual  words 
'  *  Monroe  Doctrine  ' '  were  rarely  heard  or 
seen. 

In  1845,  without  mentioning  this  shib- 
boleth by  name,  President  Polk  declared 
that  the  United  States  would  not  permit  any 
European  intervention  on  the  North  Ameri- 
can continent.  This,  as  Professor  Coolidge 
has  brought  out,*  pushed  the  theory  further 

*  See  for  an  able  exposition  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  Pro- 
fessor A.  C.  Coolidge's  The  United  States  as  a  World 
Power  (Macmillan) . 

C   7  J 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

than  it  has  been  carried  out  in  practice, 
although  it  restricted  the  original  idea  by 
leaving  South  America  out  of  account. 

A  few  years  later,  while  we  were  engaged 
in  civil  war,  Napoleon  III  attempted  to 
set  up  a  European  monarch  in  Mexico. 
Scarcely  had  we  recovered,  however,  from 
the  throes  of  our  great  conflict,  when  Mr. 
Seward  took  up  with  the  French  govern- 
ment the  necessity  for  the  withdrawal  of  the 
French  troops  from  Maximilian's  support. 
Here  we  were  acting  strongly  in  accordance 
with  the  best  traditions  of  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, and  yet  the  mysterious  words  were 
not  employed  in  the  correspondence. 

In  1866,  when  Chile  was  at  war  with 
Spain,  Secretary  Seward  wrote  to  our  min- 
ister in  Chile:  "The  policy  of  the  United 
States  in  regard  to  the  several  Spanish- 
American  States  is,  or  ought  to  be,  well 
known  now,  after  the  exposition  it  has  re- 
ceived during  the  last  five  years.  We  avoid, 
in  all  cases,  giving  encouragement  to  expec- 
tations which,  in  the  varying  course  of 
events,  we  might  find  ourselves  unable  to 
fulfil,  and  we  desire  to  be  known  as  doing 

n 8  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

more  than  we  promise,  rather  than  of  fall- 
ing short  of  our  engagements. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  we  maintain  and 
insist,  with  all  the  decision  and  energy  com- 
patible with  our  existing  neutrality,  that  the 
republican  system  which  is  accepted  by  the 
people  in  any  one  of  those  states  shall  not 
be  wantonly  assailed,  and  that  it  shall  not 
be  subverted  as  an  end  of  a  lawful  war  by 
European  powers.  We  thus  give  to  those 
republics  the  moral  support  of  a  sincere, 
liberal,  and  we  think  it  will  appear  a  useful 
friendship.  We  could  claim  from  foreign 
states  no  concession  to  our  own  political, 
moral,  and  material  principles,  if  we  should 
not  conform,  in  our  own  proceedings  in  the 
needful  intercourse  with  foreign  states,  to 
the  just  rules  of  the  laws  of  nations. 

'We  therefore  concede  to  every  nation 
the  right  to  make  peace  or  war  for  such 
causes,  other  than  political  or  ambitious,  as 
it  thinks  right  and  wise." 

There  is  great  dignity  in  Mr.  Seward's 
words  and  no  attempt  to  assume  any  arbi- 
trary right  to  interfere  in  American  matters. 

In  1870,  when  General  Grant  was  Presi- 

:  9 : 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

dent,  there  arose  a  question  relating  to  Santo 
Domingo,  which  led  the  President  to  in- 
sert in  his  message  to  Congress  the  follow- 
ing clause :  ' '  The  Doctrine  promulgated  by 
President  Monroe  has  been  adhered  to  by  all 
political  parties,  and  I  now  deem  it  proper 
to  assert  the  equally  important  principle 
that  hereafter  no  territory  on  this  continent 
shall  be  regarded  as  subject  of  transfer  to 
a  European  power." 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  words  ' '  this 
continent,"  including  in  this  case  the  island 
of  Santo  Domingo,  are  apparently  used  as 
synonymous  with  the  whole  of  the  western 
hemisphere. 

At  the  same  time,  owing  probably  to  the 
necessity  of  paying  strict  attention  to  our 
own  internal  affairs,  following  the  ravages 
of  the  Civil  War,  it  was  not  until  the  late 
part  of  the  80 's  and  the  beginning  of  the 
90 's  that  we  began  to  assume  an  aggressive 
attitude  in  our  foreign  policy. 

While  it  was  generally  understood  that 
we  would  not  countenance  any  European 
aggressiveness  or  land  hunger  so  far  as  the 
states  of  the  western  hemisphere  were  con- 

C  ioj 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

earned,  nor  any  political  interference  in  the 
affairs  of  North  and  South  America,  it  was 
not  until  1895,  during  the  second  adminis- 
tration of  President  Cleveland,  that  a  Secre- 
tary of  State  thought  it  expedient  or  neces- 
sary to  restate  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  to 
bring  us  to  the  verge  of  a  European  war 
by  backing  it  up  with  an  absolutely  uncom- 
promising attitude.  Venezuela  had  had  a 
long-standing  boundary  dispute  with  Brit- 
ish Guiana.  Nobody  cared  very  much  either 
way  until  it  was  discovered  that  in  the  dis- 
puted territory  were  rich  gold  fields.  In  the 
excitement  that  ensued,  the  Venezuelans 
appealed  to  the  United  States,  and  Secre- 
tary Olney,  invoking  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
brought  matters  to  a  crisis. 

Our  defiant  attitude  toward  Great  Britain 
astonished  the  world,  and  greatly  pleased 
the  majority  of  American  citizens.  The  very 
fact  that  we  had  not  the  slightest  personal 
interest  in  the  paltry  sixty  thousand  square 
miles  of  jungle  south-east  of  the  Orinoco 
added  to  our  self-esteem.  It  raised  our  pa- 
triotism to  the  highest  pitch  when  we  real- 
ized that  we  were  willing  to  go  to  war  with 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

the  most  powerful  nation  in  Europe  rather 
than  see  her  refuse  to  arbitrate  her  right  to 
her  ancient  possession  of  a  little  strip  of  trop- 
ical forest  with  a  government  which  was 
not  in  existence  when  England  took  British 
Guiana,  but  which  was  an  "American  Re- 
public." Fortunately  for  us,  Lord  Salisbury 
had  a  fairly  good  sense  of  humor,  and  de- 
clined to  take  the  matter  too  seriously.  In- 
stead of  standing,  in  the  proverbial  British 
manner,  strictly  for  his  honor  and  his  rights, 
he  politely  ignored  the  Boundary  Commis- 
sion which  we  had  impetuously  called  into 
existence,  and,  dealing  directly  with  his 
neighbor  Venezuela,  arranged  for  an  inter- 
national court  of  arbitration. 

We  fairly  shouted  with  joy.  Even  thirteen 
years  later,  one  of  our  most  widely  read 
"syndicate  journalists,"  writing  in  a  fine 
frenzy  of  jingoism,  summed  up  the  Vene- 
zuela episode  as  follows:  "Lord  Salisbury 
and  the  British  Government  came  down  from 
their  high  horse,  the  British  lion  slunk  away 
with  its  much  twisted  tail  between  its  legs, 
and  England  agreed  to  arbitrate  the  boun- 
dary dispute.  England  got  most  of  the  ter- 

C  i*  D 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

ritory  it  claimed  in  the  final  outcome,  but  it 
got  it  by  a  judicial  decree  and  not  by  force 
of  arms.  From  the  day  that  President  Cleve- 
land sent  that  message  to  Congress  the  na- 
tions of  Europe  have  looked  upon  the  United 
States  in  a  different  light.  The  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, which  is  the  foremost  positive  feature 
of  our  foreign  policy,  is  no  longer  a  toy  with 
which  we  are  graciously  permitted  to  amuse 
ourselves,  but  it  is  an  accepted  factor  in 
international  polity  which  commands  the 
respect  of  all  the  world." 

In  our  exuberance  over  the  success  of 
Mr.  Olney's  bold  and  unselfish  enunciation 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  we  failed  to  realize 
several  aspects  of  this  question.  In  the  first 
place,  we  had  proudly  declared  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  to  be  a  part  of  international  law, 
failing  todistinguish  between  law  and  policy. 

In  his  message  transmitting  the  corre- 
spondence between  Secretary  Olney  and  Lord 
Salisbury,  President  Cleveland  had  said: 
'* .  .  .  It  may  not  have  been  admitted  in 
so  many  words  to  the  code  of  international 
law,  butsince  in  international  councils  every 
nation  is  entitled  to  the  rights  belonging  to 
I  IS] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

it,  if  the  enforcement  of  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine is  something  we  may  justly  claim,  it 
has  its  place  in  the  code  of  international  law 
as  certainly  and  as  securely  as  if  it  were  spe- 
cifically mentioned,  and  where  the  United 
States  is  a  suitor  before  the  high  tribunal 
that  administers  international  law,  the  ques- 
tion to  be  determined  is  whether  or  not  we 
present  claims  which  the  justice  of  that  code 
of  law  can  find  to  be  right  and  valid. 

'  The  Monroe  Doctrine  finds  its  recog- 
' '  nition  in  those  principles  of  international 
'  *  law  which  are  based  upon  the  theory  that 
' '  every  nation  shall  have  its  rights  pro- 
"  tected  and  its  just  claims  enforced.  ..." 
This  sounds  well  and  reads  well — so  well 
in  fact  that  the  average  American  citizen 
was  quite  convinced  by  it.  Those  who  re- 
fused to  accept  it  were  later  criticised  by 
Mr.  Cleveland  as  '  *  un-American. ' '  He  even 
went  so  far  as  to  say :  ' '  Those  among  us 
who  most  loudly  reprehended  and  bewailed 
our  vigorous  assertion  of  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine were  the  timid  ones  who  feared  personal 
financial  loss,  or  those  engaged  in  specula- 
tion and  stock  gambling,  in  buying  much 

C  143 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

beyond  their  ability  to  pay,  and  generally  in 
living  by  their  wits." 

Yet  among  his  critics  were  such  able  in- 
ternational lawyers  as  the  late  E.  J.  Phelps 
and  Professor  Theodore  S .  Woolsey.  The  lat- 
ter wrote  as  follows  concerning  the  fine  rhe- 
toric of  the  sentences  quoted  above : ' '  There 
is  no  'high  tribunal,7  no  'code  of  interna- 
tional law,'  except  in  a  metaphorical  sense. 
If  the  passage  means  anything — which  is 
uncertain  —  it  means  that  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine is  a  part  of  the  body  of  international 
law  because  it  is  in  harmony  with  its  ideas 
of  justice.  This  is  an  error.  The  rules  of  in- 
ternational law  are  founded  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  natural  justice,  but  everything  con- 
sonant with  its  ideas  of  justice  is  not  a  rule 
of  international  law." 

Furthermore,  Mr.  Cleveland's  ingenuous 
statement — "the  principles  of  international 
law  are  based  upon  the  theory  that  every 
nation  shall  have  its  rights  protected  and 
its  just  claims  enforced" — has  no  legal 
basis.  Every  nation  has  the  right  of  contin- 
uing and  developing  its  existence,  of  giv- 
ing effect  to,  or  preserving  its  independence, 
I  15  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

and  of  holding  and  acquiring  property.  It 
has  the  right  to  defend  itself,  but,  as  Pro- 
fessor Woolsey  says  :  "  .  .  .  To  say  that 
every  state  has  a  right  to  be  protected  and  to 
nave  its  just  claims  enforced  by  some  other 
state  is  simply  ridiculous.  No ;  it  is  more — 
it  is  monstrous." 

We  were  led  into  taking  this  extreme 
position  by  the  British  contention  that  we 
should  not  seek  to  apply  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine to  the  boundary  dispute  because  it  does 
not  embody  any  principle  of  international 
law;  and  that  no  statesman,  however  emi- 
nent, and  no  nation,  however  powerful,  is 
competent  to  insert  into  the  code  of  inter- 
national law  a  novel  principle  like  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine. 

In  our  efforts  to  meet  this  we  forgot  that 
the  Doctrine  had  no  standing  as  law,  and 
was  merely  an  exposition  of  our  foreign  pol- 
icy, which,  like  any  other  policy,  could  be 
changed  at  our  own  behest  if  we  so  chose. 

The  American  people,  however,  were 
only  too  willing  to  believe  that  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  was  an  important  section  of  that 
mysterious  code  known  as  "International 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Law,"  and  far  too  large  a  number  of  us  still 
think  so. 

Before  leaving  this  aspect  of  the  discus- 
sion it  ought  to  be  said  that  there  were  writ- 
ers who  even  ventured  to  deny  that  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  was  involved  at  that  time.  It 
was  felt  by  some  that  where  a  boundary  dis- 
pute arises  between  a  European  colony  and 
an  American  state  which  the  state  is  will- 
ing to  have  settled  by  arbitration  but  the 
mother  country  of  the  colony  is  not,  we  have 
no  right  to  com  pel  her  to  do  so.  These  writers 
felt  that  to  use  the  full  extent  of  our  power 
in  order  to  force  such  arbitration  was  a  view 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  ' '  of  extensive  obli- 
gation, and  fraught  with  widespread  con- 
sequences." 

But  whether  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  or 
was  not  involved  in  what  was  known  as  the 
'  Venezuela  controversy  "  does  not  concern 
us  here.  The  fact  remains  that  the  whole  epi- 
sode disclosed  how  widespread  throughout 
the  United  States  was  the  determination  of 
the  American  people  to  uphold  the  Doctrine. 

In  the  second  place,  another  aspect  of  the 
C   '73 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

new  version  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  which 
we  failed  to  realize  and  whose  significance 
we  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  analyze  was 
that  it  was  founded  on  false  premises. 

We  had  assumed  a  new  theorem. In  the 
words  of  Mr.  Olney :  * '  The  states  of  Amer- 
ica, South  as  well  as  North,  by  geographi- 
cal proximity,  by  natural  sympathy,  by  sim- 
ilarity of  Governmental  Constitutions,  are 
friends  and  allies,  commercially  and  politi- 
cally, of  the  United  States." 

A  few  years  earlier,  the  then  Secretary 
of  State,  Elaine,  had  brought  into  existence 
the  International  Union  of  American  Re- 
publics, and  had  enunciated  a  doctrine  of 
Pan-Americanism  which  has  glowed  more 
or  less  cheerfully  ever  since. 

Mr.  Olney 's  words  recognized  this  doc- 
trine. But  when  he  gave  "geographical 
proximity ' '  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  this 
Pan-American  alliance,  he  overlooked  the 
fact  that  the  largest  cities  of  South  Amer- 
ica are  geographically  nearer  to  Spain  and 
Portugal  than  to  New  York  and  New  Eng- 
land. He  failed  to  consider  that  the  rich  east 
coast  of  South  America  is  no  more  proxi- 

C   '8  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

mate  to  the  southern  coast  of  the  United 
States  than  to  the  southern  coast  of  Eu- 
rope ;  Key  West  is  no  nearer  Rio  Janeiro 
and  Buenos  Aires  than  is  Gibraltar;  .and 
so  far  as  the  west  coast  is  concerned,  it  ac- 
tually takes  longer  to  travel  from  Valpa- 
raiso, the  chief  South  American  west  coast 
port,  to  San  Francisco,  the  chief  North 
American  west  coast  port,  than  it  does  to 
go  from  Valparaiso  to  London.  Peru  is  on 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  but  it  is  as  far  from  Puget 
Sound  as  it  is  from  Labrador. 

Most  of  our  statesmen  studied  geography 
when  they  were  in  the  grammar  school,  and 
have  rarely  looked  at  a  world-atlas  since. 
In  other  words,  we  began  the  new  develop- 
ment of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  with  a  false 
idea  of  the  geographical  basis  of  the  Pan- 
American  alliance. 

Furthermore,  the  new  Monroe  Doctrine 
was  established  on  another  false  idea,  the 
existence  of  "natural  sympathy'*  between 
South  and  North  America.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  instances  might  easily  be  multiplied 
to  show  that  our  South  American  neighbors 
have  far  more  natural  sympathy  for,  and 
C  19] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

regard  themselves  as  much  more  nearly  akin 
to,  the  Latin  races  of  Europe,  than  to  the 
cosmopolitan  people  of  the  United  States. 

A  recent  visitor,  whose  ability  to  make 
careful  and  significant  observations  no  one 
will  deny,  Mr.  James  Bryce,  in  summing  up 
the  question  of  South  American  affinities, 
writes  as  follows :  ' '  French  literature  has  a 
double  attraction  for  the  South  Americans, 
including  the  Brazilians.  It  gratifies  their 
fondness  for  graceful  and  pointed  and  rhe- 
torical expression.  Spaniards,  like  French- 
men, love  style,  and  French  style  has  for 
them  a  peculiar  charm.  With  a  great  liking 
for  what  they  call  'general  ideas,'  they  set 
less  store  by  an  accumulation  of  facts  and 
an  elaborate  examination  of  them  than  do  the 
Germans  and  the  English,  and  prefer  what 
may  be  called  the  French  way  of  treating 
a  subject.  In  short,  they  have  an  intellectual 
affinity  for  France,  for  the  brightness  of  her 
ideas,  the  gaiety  of  her  spirit,  the  finish  of 
her  literary  methods,  the  quality  of  her  senti- 
ment. 

'  Then    there   is   Paris.    When   South 
Americans  began  to  be  rich  enough  to  travel 

C    2°    3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

to  Europe  and  enjoy  themselves  there,  Paris 
became  the  Mecca  of  these  pilgrims  of  plea- 
sure. Many  a  wealthy  Argentine  landowner, 
many  a  Brazilian  coffee  planter,  every  dic- 
tator of  a  Caribbean  republic,  who,  like  Guz- 
man Blanco  of  Venezuela,  has  drawn  from 
the  public  revenues  funds  to  invest  in  Eu- 
ropean securities,  goes  to  the  metropolis  of 
fashion  and  amusement  to  spend  his  fortune 
there.  All  the  young  literary  men,  all  the 
young  artists  who  can  afford  the  journey, 
flock  thither.  There  is  a  large  South  Amer- 
ican colony  in  Paris,  and  through  it,  as 
well  as  through  books  and  magazines,  the 
French  drama  and  art,  French  ideas  and 
tastes,  dominate  both  the  fashionable  and 
the  intellectual  world  in  the  cities  of  South 
America.  The  writers  of  France  have  often 
claimed  that  there  is  something  in  the 
'French  spirit/  in  their  way  of  thinking 
and  their  way  of  expressing  thought,  which, 
distinctive  of  themselves  as  it  is,  has,  never- 
theless, a  sort  of  universality,  or  an  adapta- 
bility to  the  minds  of  all  men,  that  has  more 
than  once  in  history  given  it  an  empire  such 
as  no  other  modern  literature  has  enjoyed. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

In  and  for  South  America  this  claim  has 
been  made  good,  for  here  French  influence 
reigns  supreme." 

Besides  this  ever  present  affinity  with 
France  there  are  also  strong  bonds  of  sym- 
pathy with  the  mother  countries.  These  may 
be  readily  seen  in  little  things,  straws  which 
show  the  way  the  currents  of  feeling  are 
tending. 

How  the  Brazilians  feel  was  seen  a  few 
years  ago  in  Rio  Janeiro,  when  Brazil  was 
holding  a  national  exposition.  Each  state  of 
that  great  republic  had  a  building  of  its  own, 
but  no  foreign  nations  were  represented, 
except  Portugal,  the  mother  country,  which 
had  her  own  building. 

How  Spain  feels  was  shown  recently  in 
the  case  of  a  distinguished  Spanish  pro- 
fessor, who  was  able  to  find  time  to  make  an 
extended  journey  through  Latin  America, 
urging  Pan-Hispanism,  but  could  find  no 
time  to  make  a  lecture  tour  through  the 
cities  of  the  United  States,  although  offered 
lavish  hospitality  and  considerable  honora- 
riums. 

Of  the  difficulties  of  establishing  any  kind 

c  22 : 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  an  alliance  between  ourselves  and  the 
South  American  republics  no  one  who  has 
travelled  in  South  America  can  be  ignorant. 
As  has  been  well  said  by  a  recent  Peruvian 
writer  :  ''Essential  points  of  difference  sepa- 
rate the  two  Americas.  Differences  of  lan- 
guage, and  therefore  of  spirit ;  the  differ- 
ence between  Spanish  Catholicism  and  the 
multiform  Protestantism  of  the  Anglo-Sax- 
ons ;  between  the  Yankee  individualism  and 
the  omnipotence  of  the  State  natural  to  the 
South.  In  their  origin,  as  in  their  race,  we 
find  fundamental  antagonisms;  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  North  is  slow  and  obedient  to  the 
lessons  of  time,  to  the  influences  of  custom ; 
the  history  of  the  Southern  peoples  is  full  of 
revolution,  rich  with  dreams  of  an  unattain- 
able perfection." 

One  of  the  things  which  make  it  and  will 
continue  to  make  it  difficult  for  us  to  treat 
fairly  with  our  Southern  neighbors  is  our 
racial  prejudice  against  the  half-breed.  As 
Sehor  Calderon  bluntly  says  :  "  Half-breeds 
and  their  descendants  govern  the  La  tin - 
American  republics ; ' '  and  it  is  a  well-known 
fact  that  this  leads  to  contempt  on  the  part 

c  23 : 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  the  average  Anglo-Saxon.  In  the  United 
States  a  "  half-white  "  counts  as  a  negro. 
In  South  America  he  counts  as  a  white.  The 
difference  in  viewpoint  is  absolutely  fun- 
damental. Such  a  state  of  affairs  shows  the 
difficulty  of  assuming  that  Pan-American- 
ism is  axiomatic,  and  of  basing  the  logical 
growth  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  on  ' '  natural 
sympathy." 

In  the  third  place,  the  new  form  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  declared,  in  the  words  of 
Secretary  Olney,  that  the  "  United  States 
is  practically  sovereign  on  this  continent." 
This  at  once  aroused  the  antagonism  and 
the  fear  of  those  very  Southern  neighbors 
who,  in  another  sentence,  he  had  endeavored 
to  prove  were  "friends  and  allies,  commer- 
cially and  politically,  of  the  United  States." 
And  their  fears  seem  to  have  been  justi- 
fied by  the  facts. 

II 

The  truth  is  that  in  the  later  8CTs  and  early 

90's,  having  completely  recovered  from  the 

effects  of  the  Civil  War,  and  starting  on  an 

24 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

era  of  great  prosperity,  we  were  "feeling 
our  oats,"  as  the  saying  goes,  and  were 
inclined  to  be  somewhat  frisky  where  any 
questions  of  Latin- American  foreign  policy 
were  concerned. 

First  there  was  the  Barrundia  affair. 
General  Barrundia,  exiled  from  Guatemala 
in  '85,  had  violated  the  neutrality  laws  of 
Mexico  and  taken  passage  on  a  United 
States  merchantman  which  touched  at  the 
ports  of  his  native  land.  The  authorities  of 
Guatemala  demanded  his  surrender,  but  the 
captain  of  the  steamer  declined.  The  Amer- 
ican minister  and  the  commander  of  an 
American  man-of-war  in  those  waters  were 
brought  into  the  discussion.  They  decided 
that  by  the  rules  and  precedents  of  inter- 
national law  the  United  States  could  not 
object  to  the  exercise  of  local  police  juris- 
diction over  a  merchantman  while  she  was 
lying  in  the  waters  of  another  country. 
Guatemalan  soldiers  then  attempted  to  ar- 
rest General  Barrundia,  who  was  killed  in 
the  scuffle  that  followed.  The  American 
minister  and  our  naval  officer  had  acted 
with  absolute  propriety,  and  yet,  such  was 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

the  temper  of  the  American  people  over  this 
action  that  the  minister  was  recalled  and 
the  officer  was  removed  from  his  command 
with  a  reprimand.  In  other  words,  we  vir- 
tually denied  the  right  of  Guatemala  to  be 
treated  with  the  respect  due  to  a  free  and 
independent  state. 

In  1890,  during  the  war  between  Guate- 
mala and  Salvador,  the  good  offices  of  the 
United  States  were  tendered  in  an  effort  to 
mediate  between  the  warring  Central  Amer- 
ican powers.  Our  suggestion  was  not  only 
refused,  but  resented ;  our  consulate  at  San 
Salvador  was  attacked,  and  as  a  result  we 
sent  two  men-of-war  to  Salvador  and  forced 
a  promise  of  reparation. 

In  1891  we  again  overstepped  the  rules 
of  international  law,  and  denied  the  right 
of  one  of  the  contestants  in  the  civil  war 
in  Chile  to  purchase  arms  on  the  Pacific 
Coast.  It  has  always  been  considered  lawful 
for  merchants  to  sell  arms  to  all  the  world, 
at  peace  or  at  war.  Arms  were  sold  and 
shipped  by  the  steamer ' '  Itata. ' '  The  trans- 
action was  not  a  guilty  one,  but  one  of  our 
men-of-war  chased  the  "Itata"  for  thou- 

C  26  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

sands  of  miles  and  finally  brought  her  back 
to  San  Diego,  where  she  was  kept  several 
months  awaiting  trial.  The  case  against  her 
was  eventually  dismissed,  for  she  had  com- 
mitted no  breach  of  international  law  in  the 
judgment  of  our  own  courts.  The  seizure 
of  the  "Itata  "  was  the  cause  of  very  bitter 
feeling  arising  in  Chile.  Aided  by  other 
events  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  into 
here,  it  resulted  in  the '  *  Baltimore ' '  episode, 
when  two  of  our  sailors  on  shore  leave  were 
killed  in  the  streets  of  Valparaiso.  We  did 
not  like  the  dilatory  tactics  of  Chilean  law 
and  procedure.  We  refused  to  respect  the  de- 
cision of  the  Chilean  courts,  and  we  issued 
an  ultimatum  which,  although  extremely 
distasteful  to  Chile,  forced  her  to  take  our 
view  of  the  case.  There  is  no  question  that  the 
American  people  took  an  immense  amount  of 
satisfaction  in  riding  rough-shod  over  Chile 
at  that  time,  and  did  it  without  the  slight- 
est notion  that  we  had  given  the  Chileans 
abundant  cause  to  feel  that  with  us  might 
meant  right.  In  commenting  on  this  epi- 
sode in  1892  Professor  Woolsey  very  justly 
said:  "  .  .  .It  means,  in  the  first  place,  a 

C  273 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

departure  from  the  old  and  safe  policy  of 
the  fathers.  It  means  courting  rather  than 
avoiding  foreign  entanglements.  It  means 
one  collision  after  another,  each  with  its  sul- 
phurous war-cloud  about  it.  It  means  the 
violation  of  former  precedents,  setting  up 
new  ones  in  their  stead  which  may  prove 
awkward,  even  dangerous.  It  will  encour- 
age aggressions  upon  weak  neighbors.  It 
will  make  this  country  hated  and  distrusted 
by  its  natural  friends.  It  will  weaken  its 
commercial  position  on  this  continent, 
throwing  trade  into  other  channels  than 
our  own.  Years  must  pass  before  Chile  can 
forget  her  bitter  experiences  at  the  hands  of 
the  United  States  and  open  her  arms  to  our 
trade  freely.  International  trade  is  largely 
based  on  sentiment." 

In  1892,  owing  to  a  revolution  in  Vene- 
zuela, we  deemed  it  necessary  to  send  two 
men-of-war.  An  American  merchantman 
violated  the  paper  blockade.  Our  consulate 
on  the  Orinoco  River  was  attacked,  and  hard 
feelings  were  engendered  on  both  sides. 

In  1893,  during  the  civil  war  in  Brazil, 
five  men-of-war  were  sent  into  Brazilian 
L  28  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

waters,  under  the  command  of  Admiral 
Benham.  He  had  no  intention  of  allowing 
the  naval  party  in  the  civil  war  to  inter- 
fere with  American  merchant  shipping,  nor 
of  recognizing  rules  tacitly  admitted  by 
foreign  vessels.  Two  United  States  mer- 
chantmen entered  the  harbor  and  proposed 
to  draw  up  to  the  docks  to  discharge.  Ad- 
miral da  Gama,  in  charge  of  the  naval  forces, 
notified  the  masters  of  these  vessels  that 
they  could  not  moor  to  the  wharves,  as  the 
district  was  within  the  fire  zone.  The  ship- 
masters appealed  to  Admiral  Benham,  who 
immediately  ordered  the  merchantmen  to 
go  up  to  the  wharves,  and  notified  the  Bra- 
zilian admiral  that  he  would  open  fire  upon 
the  insurgent  squadron  if  any  interference 
was  attempted.  There  were  then  five  Amer- 
ican men-of-war  in  the  harbor,  and  the  Bra- 
zilian admiral  could  make  no  effective  resist- 
ance in  the  face  of  this  superior  force.  One 
of  his  cruisers  did  order  the  merchantmen  to 
heave-to  when  on  their  way  to  the  docks, 
but  the  U.  S.  S.  "Detroit"  immediately 
fired  two  shots  at  the  Brazilian  vessel,  and 
the  merchantmen  were  allowed  to  proceed. 

c  29 i 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

This  action  was  a  great  blow  to  the 
prestige  of  the  naval  party  in  the  civil  war. 
Their  strongest  resource  had  been  their 
ability  to  prevent  the  land  forces  from  hav- 
ing communication  by  sea  with  the  outside 
world.  Partly  as  a  result  of  this,  the  naval 
party  lost  the  cause  for  which  they  were 
fighting.  The  consequent  anti- American  at- 
titude of  their  friends  and  supporters  may 
easily  be  imagined. 

In  1894  occurred  the  Bluefields  incident 
in  Nicaragua,  when  it  was  necessary  for  us 
to  send  two  men-of-war  in  order  to  prevent 
the  banishment  of  hated  Americans  who 
had  interfered  in  a  local  revolution. 

In  1895  came  the  Venezuela  boundary 
dispute  and  the  enunciation  of  the  new 
Monroe  Doctrine  by  Secretary  Olney,  al- 
ready described. 

Our  actions  fitted  in  with  his  words.  And 
we  were  soon  to  justify  still  further  the  fear 
and  apprehension  of  our  South  American 
neighbors.  Less  than  three  years  after  the 
enunciation  of  the  new  Doctrine  we  were 
at  war  with  Spain.  The  progress  of  the  war 
in  Cuba  and  the  Spanish  colonies  was  fol- 

C   30   J 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

lowed  in  South  America  with  the  keenest 
interest.  How  profoundly  it  would  have  sur- 
prised the  great  American  public  to  real- 
ize that  while  we  were  spending  blood  and 
treasure  to  secure  the  independence  of  an- 
other American  republic,  our  neighbors  in 
Buenos  Aires  were  indulging  in  the  most 
severe  and  caustic  criticism  of  our  motives ! 
This  attitude  can  be  appreciated  only  by 
those  who  have  compared  the  cartoons  pub- 
lished week  after  week,  during  the  progress 
of  the  war,  in  this  country  and  in  Argen- 
tina. In  the  one,  Uncle  Sam  is  pictured  as 
a  benevolent  giant,  saving  the  poor  maid, 
Cuba,  from  the  jaws  of  the  ferocious  dragon, 
General  Weyler,  and  his  cruel  mistress  in 
Spain.  In  the  other,  Uncle  Sam  in  the  guise 
of  a  fat  hog  is  engaged  in  besmirching  the 
fair  garments  of  the  Queen  of  Spain  in  his 
violent  efforts  to  gobble  up  her  few  Ameri- 
can possessions.  Representations  of  our  ac- 
tions in  the  Philippines  are  in  such  disgust- 
ing form  that  it  would  not  be  desirable  to 
attempt  to  describe  some  of  the  Argentine 
cartoons  touching  upon  that  subject. 

Our  neighbors  felt  that  a  decided  change 

C   31    ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

had  come  over  the  Monroe  Doctrine !  In 
1823  we  had  declared  that  "with  the 
existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any 
European  power  we  have  not  interfered, 
and  shall  not  interfere"  (so  runs  the  origi- 
nal Monroe  Doctrine).  In  1898  we  not  only 
interfered,  but  actually  took  away  all  of 
Spain's  colonies  and  dependencies,  freeing 
Cuba,  retaining  for  ourselves  Porto  Rico, 
Guam,  and  the  Philippines,  and  eventually 
securing  a  valuable  naval  station  at  Guan- 
tanamo  on  the  island  of  Cuba. 

Without  for  a  moment  wishing  to  enter 
into  a  discussion  of  the  wisdom  of  our  actions, 
I  desire  to  emphasize  the  tremendous  differ- 
ence between  the  old  and  the  new  Monroe 
Doctrine.  This  is  not  a  case  of  theories  and 
arguments,  but  of  deeds.  What  are  the  facts? 

In  1895  we  declare  that  we  are  practi- 
cally sovereign  on  this  continent,  and  we 
follow  up  this  declaration  three  years  later, 
as  a  result  of  the  Spanish  War,  by  actually 
increasing  the  extent  of  our  possessions  and 
thoroughly  j  ustifyingthe  alarm  of  our  neigh- 
bors. The  immediate  result  was  to  treble  our 
difficulties  throughout  Latin  America. 
C  32  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

In  the  year  after  the  war  with  Spain,  we 
had  trouble  with  Brazil  over  a  scientific  ex- 
pedition to  the  Amazon ;  we  were  obliged  to 
send  a  warship  to  Central  American  waters 
for  the  protection  of  American  interests; 
we  got  into  trouble  with  Ecuador  over  the 
refusal  of  an  American  consul-general  to 
answer  the  serving  of  a  summons ;  we  made 
a  peremptory  demand  on  Colombia  for 
$30,000  for  damages  sustained  by  two 
newspapers  in  Panama,  owing  to  their  seiz- 
ure by  the  Colombian  government  during  a 
revolution;  we  landed  troops  in  Nicaragua; 
and  we  felt  obliged  to  send  a  warship  to 
Venezuela  to  look  after  our  interests  during 
one  of  her  numerous  revolutions.  No  won- 
der our  neighbors  felt  worried.  Our  attitude 
caused  actions  which  forced  us  to  take 
unpleasant  measures. 

In  1900  the  wife  of  the  American  con- 
sul at  La  Guaira  was  attacked,  and  in  the 
following  year  in  the  same  port  the  sailors 
of  an  American  warship  were  set  upon  by  a 
mob. 

In  1902  Colombia  seized  some  Ameri- 
can property  and  returned  it  after  we  had 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

sent  a  warship  into  Colombian  waters.  In 
the  same  year  we  intervened  in  Venezuelan 
affairs. 

But  one  of  the  worst  blows  came  in  1903, 
when  we  assisted  in  the  establishment  of 
the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  then  took  con- 
trol of  the  Canal  Zone.  In  other  words,  we 
went  through  the  form  of  preventing  a 
South  American  republic  from  subduing 
a  revolution  in  one  of  her  distant  provinces, 
and  eventually  took  a  strip  of  that  province 
because  we  believed  we  owed  it  to  the 
world  to  build  the  Panama  Canal.  Again, 
let  it  be  clear  that  I  am  not  interested  at  this 
point  in  defending  or  attacking  our  actions 
in  any  of  these  cases, — I  merely  desire  to 
state  what  has  happened,  and  to  show  some 
of  the  fruits  of  the  new  Monroe  Doctrine. 
"By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 

In  1906  Secretary  Root  made  his  tour  of 
South  America,  and  began  negotiations  look- 
ing toward  the  accomplishment  of  peace 
among  the  warring  states  of  Central  Amer- 
ica. 

In  1908  two  warships  had  to  be  sent  to 
Honduras  because  the  exequaturs  of  the 
C  34] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

American  consuls  had  been  cancelled.  In 
1909  we  decided  that  the  celebrated  Alsop 
claim,  made  on  behalf  of  American  citizens 
to  whom  Chile  owed  a  certain  amount  of 
money,  should  be  brought  to  the  front  after 
slumbering  for  many  years,  and  an  ultima- 
tum was  presented  to  Chile  that  the  matter 
be  settled  at  once.  Chile  replied  by  oifering 
to  submit  the  whole  case  to  the  King  of  Eng- 
land as  arbitrator.  But  the  amount  of  irrita- 
tion caused  by  the  method  followed  was  out 
of  all  proportion  to  the  amount  of  money 
involved. 

Another  one  of  the  * '  fruits  ' '  which  has 
not  escaped  the  attention  of  our  neighbors  in 
South  America  is  our  intervention  in  Santo 
Domingo.  For  years  Santo  Domingo  had 
been  the  scene  of  frequent  revolutions.  It 
was  impossible  for  her  creditors  to  find  a 
satisfactory  government  with  whom  to  deal 
for  any  length  of  time.  At  times,  it  is  said, 
there  were  three  "governments."  Several 
European  nations  whose  citizens  had  been 
victims  of  Santo  Domingo's  violated  con- 
tracts were  talking  of  seizing  a  custom  house 
or  so.  President  Roosevelt  felt  that  the  con- 
C  35  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

ditions  in  the  Dominican  Republic  not  only 
constituted  a  menace  to  our  relations  with 
other  foreign  nations,  but  that  they  also  con- 
cerned the  prosperity  of  the  people  of  the 
island  and  the  security  of  American  inter- 
ests. The  Dominican  Republic  was  finding 
it  impossible  to  defray  the  ordinary  expenses 
of  government  and  to  meet  its  obligations . 
With  a  population  of  about  half  a  million, 
it  had  a  public  indebtedness,  not  includ- 
ing all  claims,  of  $32,000,000.  The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  European  governments 
concerned  several  times  appealed  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  setting  forth  the  wrongs 
and  intolerable  delays  to  which  they  had 
been  subjected  in  the  collection  of  their  just 
claims,  and  intimating  that,  unless  the  Do- 
minican government  should  receive  some 
assistance  from  the  United  States  in  the  way 
of  regulating  its  finances,  the  creditor  gov- 
ernments in  Europe  would  be  forced  to  take 
more  effective  means  of  compulsion  to  secure 
the  satisfaction  of  their  claims. 

Notwithstanding  this  strong  statement  of 
the  case,  a  protocol  submitted  by  the  Presi- 
dent and  providing  that  the  United  States 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

should  attempt  to  adjust  all  the  obligations 
of  the  Dominican  government  and  should 
take  charge  of  the  custom  houses  was  not 
ratified  by  the  United  States  Senate.  An- 
other protocol,  however,  under  which  the 
United  States  accepted  the  control  of  the 
administration  of  the  custom  houses,  but 
not  giving  us  quite  such  extensive  powers, 
was  ratified  in  1907.  Thus  one  of  the  main 
incentives  of  revolution,  i.e.,  the  hope  of 
seizing  the  revenues  of  the  government, 
was  partly  cut  off.  There  has  been  an  occa- 
sional revolution  since  we  took  control  of  the 
custom  houses,  but  the  financial  condition 
of  the  island  is  certainly  better  than  it  was. 
Thus  we  may  seem  to  have  been  justified 
in  our  course,  but  the  fact  remains  that  al- 
though our  intervention  may  have  been  an 
excellent  thing  for  the  people  of  Santo  Do- 
mingo, it  has  undoubtedly  interfered  with 
their  right  to  do  as  they  please  with  their 
own  money,  and  has  acted  as  a  sinister 
warning  to  other  Latin-American  states  as 
to  what  they  may  expect  of  us  if  they  fail 
to  pay  their  debts. 

Within  the  past  three  years  we  have  twice 

n  37 : 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

landed  troops  in  Central  America  and  taken 
an  active  part  by  way  of  interfering  in  local 
politics.  We  believed  that  the  conditions 
were  so  bad  as  to  justify  us  in  carrying  out 
the  new  Monroe  Doctrine  by  aiding  one 
side  in  a  local  revolution. 

Our  policy  toward  the  republics  of  Cen- 
tral America  has  undergone  a  startling  de- 
velopment since  the  beginning  of  President 
Roosevelt's  administration.  In  the  \vords  of 
a  recent  minister  to  Honduras,  our  policy 
has  changed  l '  from  simple  mediation  and 
scrupulous  non-intervention,  to  a  policy  of 
active,  direct  intervention  in  their  internal 
affairs;  and  secondly,  these  interventions 
have  become  as  startlingly  frequent  as  they 
have  become  increasingly  embarrassing  in 
character. 

:'The  dangerous  trend  of  such  a  policy 
towards  an  actual  intermeddling  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  these  countries,  would  seem 
fairly  obvious.  Such  a  result,  from  every 
point  of  view,  whether  of  the  United  States, 
of  the  state  immediately  affected,  or  of  other 
Spanish-American  states,  would  be  as  la- 
mentable as  it  would  appear  unnecessary." 
C  38] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Of  our  armed  intervention  in  Cuba  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  speak,  except  to  refer 
in  passing  to  the  newspaper  story,  credited 
and  believed  in  Cuba,  that  if  American 
troops  are  again  obliged  to  intervene  in  the 
political  life  of  that  country,  they  will  not  be 
withdrawn  as  has  been  the  practice  in  the 
past. 

Finally,  in  1912,  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  by  an  overwhelming  majority, 
passed  the  Lodge  resolution  which  enlarges 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  by  declaring  that 
' '  when  any  harbor  or  other  place  in  the 
American  continents  is  so  situated  that  the 
occupation  thereof  for  naval  or  military  pur- 
poses might  threaten  the  communication  or 
the  safety  of  the  United  States,  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  could  not  see, 
without  grave  concern,  the  possession  of 
such  harbor  or  other  places  by  any  corpo- 
ration or  association  which  has  such  rela- 
tion to  another  government  not  American  as 
to  give  that  government  practical  power  of 
control  for  naval  or  military  purposes." 

Practically,  this  amounts  to  saying  that 
if  any  American  republic  chooses  to  exercise 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

her  sovereign  rights  and  sell  a  harbor  that 
is  within  a  couple  of  thousand  miles  of  the 
Panama  Canal,  we  could  not  allow  the  trans- 
action to  go  through  without  very  vigorous 
protest;  although,  we  ourselves,  by  taking 
the  harbor  of  Guantanamo  for  a  naval  base, 
are  hardly  in  a  position  to  enter  logical  pro- 
test. 

This  resolution  was  precipitated  by  the 
rumored  attempt  of  a  Japanese  fishing  com- 
pany to  secure  certain  privileges  on  Mag- 
dalena  Bay. 

The  fact  that  this  enlargement  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  interferes  with  the  natu- 
ral, desires  of  any  American  republic  to  deal 
with  foreign  corporations,  and  so  clashes 
with  the  sovereign  rights  of  independent 
states,  seems  hardly  to  have  been  taken  into 
account  by  the  Senate.  President  Taft,  how- 
ever, did  not  approve  of  the  resolution  and 
it  was  not  signed,  but  its  passage  by  a  vote 
of  51  to  4  is  regarded  in  South  America  as 
evidence  of  our  tendency  to  interfere  in  their 
affairs.  [See  Appendix  IV.] 

In  short,  many  of  the  events  of  the  past 
quarter-century  have  amply  justified  our 
40 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Southern  neighbors  in  feeling  that  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine,  under  which  term  they  include 
our  general  foreign  policy  in  the  western 
hemisphere,  means  interference  and  inter- 
vention. 

A  recent  American  minister  to  Honduras, 
in  a  carefully  prepared  paper  before  the 
American  Political  Science  Association,  was 
obliged  to  admit  that — 

''  Historically,  the  Spanish- Americans 
have  cherished  in  their  hearts  a  marked  aver- 
sion for  the  Yankee.  The  taking  of  Califor- 
nia from  Mexico,  the  occupation  of  Porto 
Rico,  the  protectorate  over  Cuba,  the  re- 
ceivership in  Santo  Domingo,  the  coup 
d'etat  in  Panama,  are  all  held  to  be  palpable 
evidence  of  a  lust  for  territory  and  warn- 
ings of  the  ultimate  fate  awaiting  other 
countries  on  this  continent.  Every  interven- 
tion of  the  United  States,  while  approved  by 
the  faction  immediately  favored,  is  viewed 
with  apprehension  by  all  other  Spanish- 
Americans.'* 

The  menace  of  intervention,  armed  inter- 
vention, the  threatened  presence  of  machine 
guns  and  American  marines,  have  repeat- 
C  41  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

edly  been  used  by  Latin-American  politi- 
cians themselves  in  their  endeavors  to  keep 
the  peace  in  their  own  countries.  And  we 
have  done  enough  of  that  sort  of  thing  to 
make  it  evident  to  disinterested  observers 
that  the  new  Monroe  Doctrine,  our  pres- 
ent policy,  is  to  act  as  international  police- 
man for  the  Latin  part  of  the  western  hemi- 
sphere. 

Is  this  Doctrine  worth  while? 

Let  us  see  what  it  involves :  first,  from  the 
European,  second,  from  the  Latin- Amer- 
ican point  of  view. 

Ill 

By  letting  it  be  known  in  Europe  that  we 
shall  not  tolerate  any  European  intervention 
or  the  landing  of  European  troops  on  the 
sacred  soil  *of  the  American  republics,  we 
assume  very  grave  responsibilities. 

As  the  ' '  Spectator ' '  recently  pointed  out, 
if  France  or  Germany  or  Great  Britain  is 
offended  by  some  act  of  a  South  American 
State  —  the  Monroe  Doctrine  offers  a  way 
out  of  these  difficulties.  "  It  constitutes  the 
United  States  a  kind  of  buffer  between  the 

C  42  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

contending  parties ;  it  provides  a  means  of 
reconciling  our  interests  and  theirs  without 
demanding  an  unconditional  surrender  on 
either  side.  But  it  does  not  do  this  without 
laying  a  very  real  burden  on  the  United 
States."  In  other  words,  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine makes  the  United  States  a  medium 
between  the  powers  of  Europe  and  South 
America. 

We  have  even  gone  further  than  this, 
we  have  declared  in  the  words  of  Secretary 
Olney,  that  the  United  States  is  "practically 
sovereign  on  this  continent,  and  that  its  fiat 
is  law  upon  the  subject  to  which  it  confines 
its  interposition. ' '  Therefore  European  coun- 
tries have  the  right  to  look  to  us  to  do  that 
which  we  prevent  them  from  doing.  A  curi- 
ous result  of  this  is  that  some  of  the  Amer- 
ican republics  float  loans  in  Europe ,  believ- 
ing that  the  United  States  will  not  allow  the 
governments  of  their  European  creditors 
forcibly  to  collect  these  loans. 

Personally,  I  believe  that  it  ought  to  be  an 

adopted  principle  of  international  law  that 

the  armed  intervention  of  creditor  nations  to 

collect  bad  debts  on  behalf  of  their  bankers 

L  *3] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

and  bondholders  is  forbidden.*  If  this  prin- 
ciple were  clearly  understood  and  accepted, 
these  bankers  and  underwriters  would  be  far 
more  particular  to  whom  they  loaned  any 
great  amount  of  money,  and  under  what  con- 
ditions. They  would  not  be  willing  to  take  the 
risks  which  they  now  take,  and  many  unfor- 
tunate financial  tangles  would  never  have  a 
beginning.  It  is  natural  for  a  republic  which 
has  great  undeveloped  resources,  much  opti- 
mism, and  a  disregard  of  existing  human 
handicaps,  to  desire  to  borrow  large  amounts 
of  money  in  order  to  build  expensive  railroads 
and  carry  out  desirable  public  improvements . 
It  is  equally  natural  that  capitalists  seeking 
good  interest  rates  and  secure  investments 
should  depend  on  the  fact  that  if  the  debtor 
country  attempts  to  default  on  its  national 
loans,  the  government  of  the  creditors  will 
intervene  with  a  strong  arm.  It  is  natural 
that  the  money  should  be  forthcoming,  even 
though  a  thorough,  business-like,  and  sci- 
entific investigation  of  the  possessions  and 

*  The  Second  Hague  Conference,  in  1907,  adopted  a  reso- 
lution favoring  the  limitation  of  the  employment  of  force 
for  the  recovery  of  contract  debts. 

44 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

resources  of  the  borrowing  nation  might 
show  that  the  chances  of  her  being  able  to 
pay  interest,  and  eventually  to  return  the 
capital,  were  highly  problematical,  and  to 
be  reckoned  as  very  high  risks. 

Millions  of  dollars  of  such  loans  have  been 
made  in  the  past.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that 
many  of  these  loans  cannot  be  repaid ;  that 
the  time  is  coming  when  the  creditor  nations 
will  look  to  us  as  the  policeman,  or  "elder 
brother,"  of  the  western  hemisphere,  to  see 
to  it  that  the  little  boys  pay  for  the  candy 
and  sweetmeats  they  have  eaten. 

The  recent  report  of  the  British  Corpo- 
ration of  Foreign  Bondholders,  which  looks 
after  the  interests  of  foreign  capitalists,  shows 
that  while  Ecuador  and  Nicaragua  are  on 
the  boundary  line,  Guatemala  and  Hondu- 
ras are  way  over  on  the  wrong  side  of  the 
fence.  In  the  words  of  the  report :  *  *  Another 
year  of  total  default  on  its  external  debt  has 
been  carried  to  the  discredit  of  the  Guate- 
malan government.  The  act  of  Spoliation, 
by  which  the  bondholders  were  arbitrarily 
robbed  of  the  revenues  specially  assigned 
to  them  in  consideration  of  the  sacrifices  to 

C453 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

which  they  were  forced  to  submit,  continues 
to  stand  as  a  shame  and  disgrace  to  the 
Republic.  The  Council  have  requested  His 
Majesty's  Government  to  take  such  steps 
as  they  may  deem  fit  to  demand  the  resti- 
tution to  the  bondholders  of  the  security  of 
which  they  have  been  deprived.  .  .  .  Hon- 
duras has  succeeded  in  delaying  the  meet- 
ing of  its  foreign  obligations  for  nearly  forty 
years,  and  there  are  no  indications  at  present 
that  the  Government  has  become  convinced 
of  the  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  its  long- 
continued  default,  either  by  accepting  the 
co-operation  of  American  bankers  in  put- 
ting its  finances  in  order,  or  by  any  other 
method." 

It  is  currently  reported  that  the  British 
Foreign  Office  recently  made  urgent  de- 
mands on  Guatemala  to  take  steps  toward 
settling  its  constantly  increasing  national 
debt.  It  was  reported  in  the  English  papers 
that  Guatemala  had  appealed  to  Washing- 
ton and  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  It  appears  to 
be  impossible  to  find  out  exactly  what  hap- 
pened. The  worst  of  it  is,  the  situation  is 
bound  to  recur.  Mexico  has  a  large  debt, 
[  46  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

and,  as  is  well  known,  local  conditions  have 
been  growing  steadily  worse  for  the  past  two 
or  three  years.  It  is  conceivable  that  the  day 
may  come  when  Mexico  will  default  the 
interest  on  her  bonds.  The  money  is  mostly 
owed  abroad.  Is  it  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  decide  what  the  foreign  bondhold- 
ers may  or  may  not  do? 

One  cannot  dodge  the  truth  that  the  con- 
tinuation of  our  support  of  this  Doctrine 
implies  that  we  will  undertake  to  be  re- 
sponsible for  the  good  behavior  of  all  of  the 
American  nations. 

The  nature  of  this  responsibility  was  more 
fully  realized  and  more  frankly  expressed 
by  President  Roosevelt  than  by  any  of  his 
predecessors.  In  a  message  to  Congress  in 
1904,  he  said:  "It  is  not  true  that  the  United 
States  feels  any  land  hunger  or  entertains 
any  projects  as  regards  other  nations  of  the 
western  hemisphere  save  such  as  are  for  their 
welfare.  All  that  this  country  desires  is  to  see 
the  neighboring  countries  stable,  orderly, 
and  prosperous.  Any  country  whose  people 
conduct  themselves  well  can  count  upon  our 
hearty  friendship.  If  a  nation  shows  that  it 
[473 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

knows  how  to  act  with  reasonable  efficiency 
and  decency  in  social  and  political  matters, 
if  it  keeps  order  and  pays  its  obligations,  it 
need  fear  no  interference  from  the  United 
States.  Chronic  wrong-doing,  or  an  impo- 
tence which  results  in  a  general  loosening  of 
the  ties  of  civilized  society,  may,  in  Amer- 
ica as  elsewhere,  ultimately  require  inter- 
vention by  some  civilized  nation,  and  in  the 
western  hemisphere,  the  adherence  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  may 
force  the  United  States,  however  reluctantly, 
in  flagrant  cases  of  such  wrong-doing  or  impo- 
tence to  the  exercise  of  an  international  police 
power.  [See  Appendix  II.] 

' '  Our  interests  and  those  of  our  Southern 
neighbors  are  in  reality  identical.  They  have 
great  natural  riches,  and  if  within  their  bor- 
ders the  reign  of  law  and  justice  obtains, 
prosperity  is  sure  to  come  to  them.  While 
they  thus  obey  the  primary  laws  of  civilized 
nations  they  may  rest  assured  that  they  will 
be  treated  by  us  in  a  spirit  of  cordial  and 
helpful  sympathy.  We  would  interfere  with 
them  only  in  the  last  resort,  and  then  only 
48 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

if  it  became  evident  that  their  inability  or 
unwillingness  to  do  justice  at  home  and 
abroad,  had  violated  the  rights  of  the  United 
States  or  had  invited  foreign  aggression  to 
the  detriment  of  the  entire  body  of  Ameri- 
can nations." 

Again,  in  the  following  year,  President 
Roosevelt  endeavored  to  show  his  sense  of 
our  responsibility.  In  a  message  to  Congress 
he  said: "One  of  the  most  effective  instru- 
ments for  peace  is  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  it 
has  been  and  is  being  gradually  developed 
by  this  nation  and  accepted  by  other  nations. 
No  other  policy  could  have  been  as  efficient 
in  promoting  peace  in  the  western  hemi- 
sphere and  in  giving  to  each  nation  thereon 
the  chance  to  develop  along  its  own  lines. 
If  we  had  refused  to  apply  the  Doctrine  to 
changing  conditions  it  would  now  be  com- 
pletely outworn,  would  not  meet  any  of  the 
needs  of  the  present  day,  and  indeed  would 
probably  by  this  time  have  sunk  into  com- 
plete oblivion.  It  is  useful  at  home,  and  is 
meeting  recognition  abroad  because  we  have 
adapted  our  application  of  it  to  meet  the 
growing  and  changing  needs  of  the  hemi- 
[  49  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

sphere.  When  -we  announce  a  policy,  such  as 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  ive  thereby  commit  our- 
selves to  the  consequences  of  the  policy,  and 
those  consequences  from  time  to  time  alter.  It 
is  out  of  the  question  to  claim  a  right  to  shirk 
the  responsibility  for  its  exercise.  Not  only  we, 
but  all  American  Republics  who  are  bene- 
fited by  the  existence  of  the  Doctrine,  must 
recognize  the  obligations  each  nation  is  under 
as  regards  foreign  peoples  no  less  than  its 
duty  to  insist  upon  its  own  rights." 

At  the  same  time,  fearing  the  results  of 
thus  publicly  acknowledging  our  responsi- 
bility under  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  President 
Roosevelt  felt  it  necessary  to  issue  the  follow- 
ing warning :  * '  Moreover,  we  must  make  it 
evident  that  we  do  not  intend  to  permit  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  to  be  used  by  any  nation  on 
this  continent  as  a  shield  to  protect  it  from  the 
consequences  of  its  own  misdeeds  against  for- 
eign nations.  If  a  republic  to  the  south  of  us 
commits  a  tort  against  a  foreign  nation,  such 
as  an  outrage  against  a  citizen  of  that  nation, 
then  the  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  force  us 
to  interfere  to  prevent  punishment  of  the 
tort,  save  to  see  that  the  punishment  does 
C  50] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

not  assume  the  form  of  territorial  occupa- 
tion in  any  shape.  The  case  is  more  difficult 
when  it  refers  to  a  contractual  obligation. 
Our  own  government  has  always  refused  to 
enforce  such  contractual  obligations  on  be- 
half of  its  citizens  by  an  appeal  to  arms.  It 
is  much  to  be  wished  that  all  foreign  gov- 
ernments would  take  the  same  view.  But 
they  do  not ;  and  in  consequence  we  are  lia- 
ble at  any  time  to  be  brought  face  to  face 
with  disagreeable  alternatives.  On  the  one 
hand,  this  country  would  certainly  decline 
to  go  to  war  to  prevent  a  foreign  government 
from  collecting  a  just  debt ;  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  very  inadvisable  to  permit  any 
foreign  power  to  take  possession,  even  tem- 
porarily, of  the  custom  houses  of  an  Amer- 
ican republic  in  order  to  enforce  the  pay- 
ment of  its  obligations ;  for  such  temporary 
occupation  might  turn  into  a  permanent  oc- 
cupation. The  only  escape  from  these  alter- 
natives may  at  any  time  be  that  we  must 
ourselves  undertake  to  bring  about  some 
arrangement  by  which  so  much  as  possible 
of  a  just  obligation  shall  be  paid.  It  is  far 
better  that  this  country  should  put  through 
C  51  J 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

such  an  arrangement,  rather  than  allow  any 
foreign  country  to  undertake  it." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  these  statements 
were  logical  and  represent  our  justifiable  re- 
sponsibility so  long  as  we  maintain  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine.  It  is  true  they  caused  great 
alarm  in  South  America,  and  in  the  follow- 
ing year  President  Roosevelt  found  it  ne- 
cessary to  say :  "  In  many  parts  of  South 
America  there  has  been  much  misunder- 
standing of  the  attitude  and  purposes  of  the 
United  States  toward  the  other  American 
republics.  An  idea  had  become  prevalent 
that  our  assertion  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  im- 
plied, or  carried  with  it,  an  assumption  of 
superiority,  and  of  a  right  to  exercise  some 
kind  of  protectorate  over  the  countries  to 
whose  territory  that  doctrine  applies.  Noth- 
ing could  be  farther  from  the  truth.  Yet  that 
impression  continued  to  be  a  serious  barrier 
to  good  understanding,  to  friendly  inter- 
course, to  the  introduction  of  American  cap- 
ital and  the  extension  of  American  trade. 
The  impression  was  so  widespread  that 
apparently  it  could  not  be  reached  by  any 
ordinary  means." 

C  52  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

To  disperse  this  impression  was  part  of 
Secretary  Root's  mission  on  his  journey 
through  South  America,  and  he  was  par- 
tially successful,  but  the  logic  of  the  situa- 
tion still  remains. 

If  we  are  the  big-brother-with-the-club 
who  will  not  permit  any  outsider  to  spank 
our  irritating  or  troublesome  younger  broth- 
ers, we  must  accept  the  natural  corollary  of 
keeping  them  in  order  ourselves,  for  we  can- 
not allow  the  American  family  to  become  a 
nuisance.  And  some  members  of  it  have 
a  decided  tendency  in  that  direction.  Is 
this  task  worth  while  ?  Is  there  not  a  better 
way  out  of  the  difficulty? 

Furthermore,  Europe  knows  that  in  order 
to  continue  to  execute  our  self-imposed  and 
responsible  mission  we  must  run  counter  to 
the  most  approved  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations. 

The  Right  of  Independence  is  so  funda- 
mental and  so  well  established  a  principle 
of  international  law,  and  respect  for  it  is  so 
essential  to  the  existence  of  national  self-re- 
straint, that  armed  intervention,  or  any  other 
action  or  policy  tending  to  place  that  right 

Lss] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

in  a  subordinate  position,  is  properly  looked 
upon  with  disfavor,  not  only  in  Latin  Amer- 
ica, but  by  all  the  family  of  civilized  nations. 

The  grounds  upon  which  intervention  is 
permitted  in  international  law  differ  accord- 
ing to  the  authority  one  consults.  But  in 
general  they  are  limited  to  the  right  of  self- 
preservation,  to  averting  danger  to  the  in- 
tervening state,  and  to  the  duty  of  fulfilling 
engagements.  When,  however,  the  danger 
against  which  intervention  is  directed  is  the 
consequence  of  the  prevalence  of  ideas  which 
are  opposed  to  views  held  by  the  interven- 
ing state,  most  authorities  believe  that  inter- 
vention ceases  to  be  legitimate.  To  say  that 
we  have  the  right  to  intervene  in  order  to 
modify  another  state's  attitude  toward  revo- 
lutions is  to  ignore  the  fundamental  princi- 
ple that  the  right  of  every  state  to  live  its 
life  in  a  given  way  is  precisely  equal  to  that 
of  another  state  to  live  its  life  in  another  way. 

In  the  last  analysis,  no  intervention  is 
legal  except  for  the  purpose  of  self-preserva- 
tion, unless  a  breach  of  international  law  has 
taken  place,  or  unless  the  family  of  civilized 
states  concur  in  authorizing  it. 
C  54  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

If,  then,  our  adherence  to  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  means,  practically,  disregard  of  the 
principles  of  the  accepted  law  of  nations, 
is  it  worth  while  to  continue?  Why  should 
the  United  States  not  abandon  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  and  publicly  disclaim  any  desire 
to  interfere  in  the  domestic  quarrels  of  the 
American  republics  ?  Why  should  our  gov- 
ernment not  publicly  state  to  Europe  that 
this  nation  will  not  intervene  except  at  the 
request  of  a  Pan-American  Congress,  and 
then  only  in  case  we  are  one  of  the  members 
which  such  a  Congress  selects  for  the  spe- 
cific purpose  of  quieting  a  certain  trouble- 
some neighbor? 

IV 

From  the  Latin- American  point  of  view,  the 
continuance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  in- 
sulting, and  is  bound  to  involve  us  in  serious 
difficulties  with  our  neighbors.  We  seem  to 
be  blind  to  actual  conditions  in  the  largest 
and  most  important  parts  of  Latin  America, 
such  as  Brazil,  Argentina,  and  Chile.  We 
need  to  arouse  the  average  citizen  to  study 
the  commercial  situation  and  the  recent  his- 
C553 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

tory  of  those  three  republics.  Let  him  pon- 
der on  the  meaning  of  Brazil's  one  hundred 
million  dollars  of  balance  of  trade  in  her 
favor.  Let  him  realize  the  enormous  extent 
of  Argentina's  recent  growth,  and  her  abil- 
ity to  supply  the  world  with  wheat,  corn, 
beef,  and  mutton.  Let  him  examine  Chile's 
political  and  economic  stability.  Let  him 
consider  whether  or  not  these  nations  are  fit 
to  take  care  of  themselves,  and  are  worthy 
of  being  included  in  an  alliance  to  preserve 
America  for  the  Americans,  if  that  is  worth 
while.  Let  him  ask  himself  whether  or  not 
the  Argentine,  Brazilian,  and  Chilean  gov- 
ernments deserve  our  patronizing,  we-will- 
protect-you-from-Europe  attitude. 

We  are  not  an  imaginative  people.  Un- 
like our  Southern  neighbors,  it  is  difficult  for 
us  to  visualize  the  meaning  of  printed  state- 
ments about  countries  that  we  have  never 
seen.  When  the  South  American  hears  the 
figures  of  our  commerce,  learns  the  height 
of  our  sky-scrapers,  and  listens  to  the  extent 
of  the  benefactions  of  our  leading  philan- 
thropists, he  cannot  help  conceiving  an  over- 
powering sense  of  the  greatness  of  the  United 
C  56  1 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

• 

States,  and  is  even  inclined  to  exaggerate  its 
power  for  interference  and  intervention. 

We,  on  the  other  hand,  really  need  to  visit 
South  America  in  order  to  get  a  vivid  idea 
of  present  conditions  in  the  leading  repub- 
lics. Fortunately,  the  number  of  those  who 
travel  southward  is  increasing  every  year. 
The  Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce  took  a 
long  step  in  the  right  direction  recently  by 
making  it  possible  for  its  members  and 
friends  to  enjoy  a  comfortable  tour  through 
the  leading  South  American  cities.  But  in- 
dividual tourists  have  nothing  to  fear.  The 
luxury-loving  American  traveller  can  even 
find  four  Ritz-Carl ton  hotels  on  the  east  coast. 
The  steamers  that  take  him  to  them  are 
as  comfortable  as  any  in  the  world.  Condi- 
tions on  the  west  coast  will  soon  be  equally 
good. 

Furthermore,  our  Southern  neighbors  are 
rather  more  fond  of  certain  kinds  of  luxury 
than  we  are,  and  in  their  present  prosperous 
condition  they  seem  to  be  abundantly  able 
to  pay.  In  fact,  perhaps  one  of  the  best  ways 
of  getting  an  idea  of  Argentina's  economic 
status  is  to  look  at  the  question  of  taxi-cabs. 
C  57  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

New  York,  with  a  population  of  over  5  mil- 
lion, has  at  the  present  time  about  2000 
licensed  taxi-cabs.  Chicago,  with  a  popula- 
tion of  over  2  million,  has  700  taxi-cabs. 
Buenos  Aires,  the  capital  of  Argentina,  with 
a  population  of  but  one  million  three  hun- 
dred thousand,  has  3000  taxi-cabs ;  or  more 
than  New  York  and  Chicago  combined.  Do 
you  believe  she  would  have  any  less  if  we 
did  away  with  the  Monroe  Doctrine? 

Let  us  look  a  few  facts  squarely  in  the 
face,  even  though  we  cannot  visualize  them 
as  sharply  as  the  South  Americans  do.  Our 
imports  from  China  and  Japan  in  1910 
amounted  to  81  million  dollars.  Our  imports 
from  Argentina  and  Brazil  amounted  to  129 
million  dollars.  In  the  same  year  there  were 
57  million  sheep  in  the  United  States.  Ar- 
gentina had  67  million. In  191 1  we  built  over 
3000  miles  of  railroad  in  the  United  States. 
To  be  sure,  Argentina  did  not  build  as 
much,  but  she  did  build  over  2300  miles. 

During  the  past  five  years  we  have  ex- 
ported 153  thousand  tons  of  meat.  Argen- 
tina has  exported  1500  thousand  tons  or 
nearly  ten  times  as  much.  During  the  past 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

three  years,  while  we  were  exporting  118 
million  bushels  of  wheat,  Argentina  exported 
226  million  bushels  or  nearly  twice  as  much. 
We  have  always  considered  ourselves  great 
corn  producers,  and  so  we  are,  but  last 
year  while  we  were  exporting  30  million 
bushels,  Argentina  was  exporting  172  mil- 
lion bushels. 

The  total  exports  of  Argentina  for  last 
year  amounted  to  $480,000,000,  of  which 
$278,000,000  represented  products  of  ag- 
riculture and  $188,000,000  represented 
pastoral  products.  Argentina  will  soon  be 
the  world's  greatest  purveyor  of  food-stuffs ; 
in  fact,  she  already  leads  in  several  lines. 
This  enables  her  to  be  a  great  buyer.  Last 
year  her  purchases  abroad  amounted  to 
$384,000,000.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
balance  of  trade  in  her  favor  was  nearly 
$100,000,000. 

Brazil  has  about  the  same  favorable  bal- 
ance, and  yet  she  is  only  on  the  threshold  of 
her  development.  Last  year  she  was  only  able 
to  purchase  $270,000,000  worth  of  goods 
abroad.  These  two  little  republics,  whom 
we  are  trying  to  shelter  under  the  Monroe 
I  59  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Doctrine,  together  imported  $650,000,000 
worth  of  goods  last  year  and  had  about 
$200,000,000  left  over. 

Some  of  my  readers  will  be  thinking, 
' '  But  Argentina  and  Brazil  are  only  two 
countries  and  there  are  eleven  others  in 
South  America."  And  this  is  true,  but  it 
is  also  true  that  we  have  been  talking  about 
the  majority,  for  Argentina  and  Brazil  con- 
tain more  than  half  the  total  population  of 
South  America  and  comprise  four-sevenths 
of  the  total  area.  Furthermore,  we  have  said 
nothing  about  Chile,  which  is  by  nature  a 
small  country,  but  has  a  very  active  popu- 
lation and  an  excellent  government.  Her 
political  upheavals  have  been  no  more  fre- 
quent than  our  own,  and  her  record  for  cour- 
age and  daring  in  time  of  war  has  not  been 
excelled  in  any  part  of  the  world. 

Another  reason  why  we  should  focus  our 
attention  on  Argentina,  Brazil,  and  Chile  is 
that  the  volume  of  their  foreign  commerce 
is  four-fifths  of  the  total  for  South  America. 

While  Chile  has  not  the  great  agricul- 
tural possibilities  of  her  neighbors,  she  is 
nevertheless  in  a  strong  financial  position. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

She  has  recently  given  contracts  for  har- 
bor improvements  at  Valparaiso  and  San 
Antonio  involving  an  expenditure  of  over 
$20,000,000.  She  is  drawing  the  plans 
for  further  improvements  in  other  harbors 
which  her  Minister  of  Finance  estimates 
will  cost  $25,000,000  more.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  Chile  is  a  weakling,  even  if  her 
territory  is  not  very  broad. 

One  thing  more.  The  amount  of  British 
capital  invested  in  the  countries  of  Latin 
America  is  a  fair  criterion  of  their  impor- 
tance. According  to  the  latest  figures,  as  given 
in  the  "  South  American  Journal,"  a  weekly 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  theBritish  investor, 
the  amount  of  British  capital  invested  in 
Argentina  amounts  to  about  £3 3 0,000, 000 
or  $1,610,400,000.  In  Brazil  Great  Britain 
has  invested£21 1,000,000  or$l,029, 680,- 
000,  of  which  about  one-half  is  in  govern- 
ment bonds.  In  Chile  she  has  £61,000,000 
or  $297,680,000,  of  which  one-half  is  in 
government  bonds.  In  the  whole  of  Latin 
America  British  investments  amount  to 
£937,140,000  or  $4,573,243,200. 

Such  figures  really  surpass  our  powers 
C  61  n 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  imagination.  But  even  if  the  tops  of  the 
mountains  are  in  the  clouds,  we  can  at  least 
realize  that  we  are  confronted  by  mountains 
and  not  molehills. 

Although  the  average  American  does 
know  far  more  about  South  America  than  he 
did  a  few  years  ago,  when  I  heard  a  mem- 
ber of  one  of  the  larger  University  Clubs  in 
the  East  admit  that  he  did  not  know  whether 
Venezuela  was  in  Central  or  South  Amer- 
ica, and  cared  less,  we  are  many  of  us  ac- 
tually groping  in  the  dark,  and  undoubtedly 
it  is  difficult  to  grasp  present  conditions  in 
the  three  largest  states  of  South  America. 

We  know  that  they  are  not  the  hot-beds 
of  revolutions  and  fevers  that  we  once  sup- 
posed them  to  be,  and  that  there  is  some- 
thing there  besides  earthquakes,  jungles, 
and  generals.  Yet  very  few  of  us  actually 
appreciate  the  present  state  of  affairs.  How 
many  people  realize,  for  instance,  that  there 
are  twelve  steamers  a  month  sailing  from 
New  York,  which  carry  freight,  passengers, 
and  mails  to  the  ports  of  Brazil,  or  that  there 
are  fifty  mail  steamers  a  month  between 
Europe  and  Argentina? 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

The  fact  is,  we  are  still  wofully  ignorant 
of  the  actual  conditions  in  the  leading  Amer- 
ican republics.  Is  it  not  time  that  we  began 
to  realize  why  it  is  that  to  the  inhabitants  of 
those  countries  the  very  idea  of  the  existence 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  only  distaste- 
ful, but  positively  insulting? 

It  seems  to  many  of  them  as  gratuitous 
as  it  would  to  us  if  Chile  were  to  enunciate 
a  similar  doctrine  as  a  result  of  the  Japan- 
ese troubles  in  California,  and  should  declare 
that  she  could  not  view  any  interposition  for 
the  purpose  of  oppressing  the  Californians, 
or  contemplate  their  destruction  by  any  Asi- 
atic power,  "in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  " 
toward  Chile,  and  "dangerous  to  her  peace 
and  safety."  The  day  may  come  when  we 
shall  be  glad  enough  to  have  her  hold  those 
opinions,  but  for  her  to  declare  them  at  the 
present  time  would,  to  say  the  least,  seem 
uncalled  for  and  strange.  But  it  is  no  more 
uncalled  for  nor  any  stranger  than  that  as 
a  people  we  should  regard  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine as  applying  to  Chile  or  Argentina  or 
Brazil. 

[   63] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Surely  enough  has  been  said  to  make  it 
perfectly  evident  that  the  leading  powers  of 
South  America  are  abundantly  able  to  take 
care  of  themselves  and  are  in  a  position  to 
laugh  at  the  old  Monroe  Doctrine. 

If  these  powers  dislike  and  despise  our 
maintenance  of  the  old  Monroe  Doctrine,  it 
is  not  difficult  to  conceive  how  much  more 
they  must  resent  the  new  one.  The  very 
thought  that  we,  proud  in  the  consciousness 
of  our  own  self-righteousness,  sit  here  with 
a  smile  on  our  faces  and  a  big  stick  in  our 
hands,  ready  to  chastise  any  of  the  Amer- 
ican republics  that  do  not  behave,  fairly 
makes  their  blood  boil.  It  may  be  denied 
that  this  is  our  attitude.  Grant  that  it  is  not ; 
still  our  neighbors  believe  that  it  is,  and  if 
we  desire  to  convince  them  of  the  contrary, 
we  must  definitely  and  publicly  abandon  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  and  enunciate  a  new  kind 
of  foreign  policy. 

The  present  Monroe  Doctrine  is  simply 
a  "petulant  and  insatiable  imperialism," 
and  its  development  is  "a  superb,  auda- 
cious, and  mortifying  notification  to  the 
Latin  peoples  of  the  continent ' '  of  our  stren- 

C   64   I] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

uous  desire  either  to  absorb  the  small  re- 
publics or  to  become  the  supreme  arbiters  of 
their  destinies. 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  a  learned 
Argentine  judge,  writing  in  one  of  the  most 
important  periodicals  of  the  southern  hemi- 
sphere. In  an  article  filled  with  paragraphs 
of  vigorous  protest,  which  breathes  the  'es- 
sence of  the  Southern  feeling  toward  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  he  enlarges  on  this  theme : 
"It  is  both  convenient  and  necessary  that 
we  should  declare  in  virile  and  dignified 
language  to  the  United  States  that  we  are 
not  disposed  to  admit  her  right  of  tutelage.  It 
is  too  imperialistic,  —  too  degrading  to  our- 
selves and  our  neighbors,  who  are  worthy 
of  being  respected  by  the  United  States  as 
well  as  by  the  cultivated  powers  of  Europe. 
To  be  sure  in  our  territories  there  still  exist, 
in  distant  provinces,  tribes  of  savages,  just 
as  in  the  United  States.  Nevertheless,  we 
respect  the  right  of  the  individual  and  his 
property,  and  our  generous  laws  contain 
ample  guarantees  and  offer  full  privileges  to 
aliens  who  desire  to  establish  themselves 
on  our  rich  lands.  The  fruit  of  their  labors  is 
C  65  n 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

guaranteed  to  them  by  the  justice  of  our 
courts.  They  themselves  will  be  better  for 
coming  in  contact  with  our  culture,  and  their 
children  are  welcome  in  the  numerous  free 
public  schools  which  maybe  found  through- 
out South  America." 

He  goes  on  to  urge  the  states  of  Latin 
America  to  unite  in  declaring  that  they  not 
only  need  no  foreign  tutelage,  but  will  con- 
sider any  attempt  on  our  part  to  extend  our 
system  to  any  portion  of  Latin  America  as 
dangerous  to  their  peace  and  safety.  Any 
act  of  any  foreign  power  which  savors  of 
intervention  is  to  be  regarded  in  no  other 
light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  un- 
friendly disposition  toward  the  whole  of  Latin 
America,  and  he  urges  the  states  of  Latin 
America  to  unite  in  declaring  that  they  will 
refuse  to  recognize  or  grant  belligerent  rights 
to  any  foreign  nation  engaging  in  such  in- 
tervention. 

Nearly  every  one  has  heard  of  that  vio- 
lent Argentine  patriot,  Manuel  Ugarte,  who 
is  devoting  his  life  to  a  missionary  cam- 
paign urging  the  Latin-American  republics 
to  confederate  themselves  and  avoid  being 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

absorbed  by  the  United  States.  His  book, 
'The  Future  of  Latin-America,"  which 
has  had  a  considerable  vogue,  consists 
largely  of  quotations  from  the  bombastic 
utterances  of  imperialistic  politicians  in  the 
United  States.  Our  jingoistic  editors  give 
him  abundant  material  with  which  to  work 
on  the  sensitive  feelings  of  the  Latin  Ameri- 
cans. Unfortunately,  he  is  able  to  quote 
sentences  from  the  speeches  of  our  leading 
statesmen  which  lend  color  to  his  thesis. 
In  1906,  when  Mr.  Taft  was  in  President 
Roosevelt's  Cabinet,  he  said,  in  the  course 
of  a  speech:  "The  frontiers  of  the  United 
States  virtually  extend  to  Tierra  del  Fuego. ' ' 
It  may  be  easily  imagined  how  this  could 
be  twisted  into  a  declaration  of  ultimate  im- 
perialism. 

The  more  thoughtful  Argentines  politely 
but  firmly  decline  to  admit  that  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  is  applicable  to  their  country. 
Consider  these  words  of  Professor  Gil,  of 
the  University  of  La  Plata :  *  *  It  would  not 
be  possible  to  apply  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to 
any  case  connected  with  Argentina,  without 
committing  an  offence  very  prejudicial  to  the 
C  67  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

best  interests  of  the  United  States.  In  its  es- 
sence the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  tutelage.  No 
such  policy  of  tutelage  could  be  carried  out 
without  gravely  offending  the  very  strong 
national  feeling  of  this  people." 

Even  Pan-Americanism  does  not  interest 
the  Argentines. 

'  Their  newspapers  and  periodicals  make 
only  incidental  reference  to  it,  while  the  uni- 
versity and  intellectual  circles  give  it  only 
cold  and  academic  examination." 

They  believe  that  in  practice  our  Pan- 
American  policy  is  vitiated  and  valueless 
because  it  is  too  one-sided.  A  recent  cartoon 
depicts  Uncle  Sam  disguised  as  a  hideous 
spider,  in  whose  web  the  sun-loving  flies 
—  the  tropical  American  republics  —  are 
caught.  Another,  from  the  leading  illus- 
trated weekly  of  Buenos  Aires,  shows  Uncle 
Sam  as  a  hook-nosed  cook  with  bony  claw- 
like  hands  bending  over  a  range  on  which 
he  is  cooking  the  fat  fowl  ' '  Mexico  "  in  a 
frying-pan  of ' '  Revolucion ' '  and  muttering 
with  a  saturnine  grimace,  ' '  I  think  this  bird 
will  soon  be  done." 

In  Chile,  the  cartoonist  depicts  Samuel  as 

£683 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

a  fisherman,  in  whose  basket  are  Porto  Rico 
and  Panama,  and  whose  hook  is  baited  with 
"Intervention."  Cuba, Ecuador,  and  Mex- 
ico are  swimming  dangerously  near  in  the 
muddy  waters  of  "Revoluciones." 

It  is  reported  that  even  the  heavily  pat- 
ronized moving  picture  shows  have  taken 
up  the  burden  of  the  same  song  and  are 
teaching  the  thoughtless  South  American 
proletariat  that  we  are  simply  pirates. 

Brazil,  largely  on  account  of  its  size  (in 
area  it  is  larger  than  the  continental  area  of 
the  United  States),  has  always  been  more 
kindly  in  its  criticism  of  us  than  many  of 
the  other  countries.  But  even  there  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  has  been  "up  to  the  present 
time  regarded  as  a  pure  eccentricity  of  the 
kind  for  which  America  has  become  the 
classic  source.  .  .  .  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 
as  such,  has  no  value  whatever.  At  best  it 
is  simply  another  document  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  would  determine  the  charac- 
teristic psychology  of  the  North  American. 
Such  a  doctrine  passes  not  only  for  a  work 
very  original  and  very  Yankee,  but  also  as 
being  without  substance  as  a  whole.  The 
[  69  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

government  of  the  United  States  can  invoke 
it,  and  put  it  into  force  when  it  is  to  its 
advantage  to  do  so,  and  whenever  it  is  able 
to  give  to  the  formula  the  unanswerable 
validity  and  strength  of  big  guns. 

"  As  a  North  American  doctrine,  created 
and  interpreted  exclusively  by  the  govern- 
ment at  Washington,  and  by  that  govern- 
ment, through  its  sovereign  criterion,  exclu- 
sively applied,  what  we,  nations  of  South 
America,  should  do  is,  not  admit  any  such 
doctrine,  and  treat  it,  moreover,  as  if  it  did 
not  exist." 

If  Brazilian  editors  can  write  like  that, 
what  can  we  expect  of  the  others  ? 

One  of  the  more  conservative  writers  of 
Latin  America,  who  is  by  no  means  charac- 
terized by  exaggerated  criticisms  or  preju- 
diced misstatements,  in  an  unusually  lucid 
exposition  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  pointedly 
remarks  that  it  is  an  evolution  of  the  primi- 
tive doctrine  which  in  its  essentials  implies 
the  actual  practice  of  that  very  intervention 
in  Latin  America  against  which  the  origi- 
nal Doctrine  of  1823  protested.  He  goes  on 
to  explain  that  this  intervention,  although 
C  70  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

hanging  imminent  over  the  heads  of  his 
fellow  citizens,  will  not  fall  as  long  as  the 
Latin- American  nations  are  orderly.  He  con- 
cludes an  essay  on  "The  Big  Stick"  with 
these  cynical  words :  "  The  lion  and  the  lamb 
will  live  peacefully  as  Jefferson  announced, 
because  this  good  lion  only  attacks  the  ewes 
when  his  hunger  makes  it  absolutely  neces- 
sary, and  not  because  of  any  ardent  desire 
to  massacre  the  weak  ones." 

Finally,  listen  to  this  from  a  Latin -Amer- 
ican editor :  *  *  Away  then  with  this  benevo- 
lent Monroe  Doctrine !  It  is  very  far  from  a 
doctrine  by  which  all  interests  may  be  equally 
protected,  or  may  be  held  equally  sacred  in 
all  the  countries  it  concerns.  Instead  of  that, 
it  is  a  doctrine  of  absorption,  and  annihilates 
the  interests  of  the  parties  affected. 

*  The  North  American  doctrine  of  hege- 
mony in  the  Latin  republics  will  rob  these 
peoples  of  their  sovereignty  at  home  and 
abroad.  North  American  imperialism  will 
force  them  to  sacrifice  their  independence 
to  the  expansion  of  the  United  States  over 
the  whole  continent.  The  Doctrine  of  Monroe 
is  the  shield  and  buckler  of  United  States  a^- 
I  71  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

gression  ;  it  is  a  sword  suspended  by  a  hair  over 
the  Latin  continent. ' ' 

Can  we  afford  to  continue  to  give  grounds 
for  such  statements? 


The  press  of  Latin  America  is  not  alone  in 
sounding  the  note  of  protest  against  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  and  of  vigorous  warning 
for  the  future.  There  are  those  who  like  to 
encourage  them,  to  "  egg  them  on." 

We  ought  not  to  be  blind  to  the  fact  that 
there  are  clever  authors  residing  in  Europe 
who  take  the  utmost  pains  to  make  the 
Latin  Americans  believe — what  they  are 
unfortunately  only  too  willing  to  believe — 
that  we  desire  to  be  not  only  practically,  but 
actually,  sovereign  on  the  western  hemi- 
sphere. A  recent  French  writer,  Maurice 
de  Waleffe,  writing  on  "The  Fair  Land  of 
Central  America, ' '  begins  his  book  with  this 
startling  announcement  of  a  discovery  he 
has  made :  ' '  The  United  States  have  made 
up  their  minds  to  conquer  South  America. 
Washington  aspires  to  become  the  capital  of 
an  enormous  empire,  comprising,  with  the 

C  72  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

exception  of  Canada,  the  whole  of  the  New 
World.  Eighty  million  Yankees  want  to 
annex,  not  only  forty  million  Spanish  Amer- 
icans, but  such  mines,  forests,  and  agricul- 
tural riches  as  can  be  found  nowhere  else  on 
the  face  of  the  globe." 

Most  of  us,  when  we  read  those  words, 
smile,  knowing  that  they  are  not  true ;  yet 
that  does  not  affect  the  fact  that  the  Latin 
American,  when  he  reads  them,  gnashes 
his  teeth  and  believes  that  they  are  only  too 
true.  If  he  belongs  to  one  of  the  larger 
republics,  it  makes  him  toss  his  head  an- 
grily, and  increases  his  hatred  toward  those 
"Yankis,"  whose  manners  he  despises.  If  he 
belongs  to  one  of  the  smaller  republics,  his 
soul  is  filled  with  fear  mingled  with  hatred, 
and  he  sullenly  awaits  the  day  when  he  shall 
have  to  defend  his  state  against  the  Yan- 
kee invaders.  In  every  case  the  effect  pro- 
duced is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  peace  and 
harmony. 

In  another  book,  which  is  attracting  wide 
attention  and  was  written  by  a  young  Peru- 
vian diplomatist,  there  is  a  chapter  entitled 
"The  North  American  Peril,"  and  it  be- 
I  73  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

gins  with  these  significant  words : ' '  To  save 
themselves  from  Yankee  imperialism,  the 
American  democracies  would  almost  accept 
a  German  alliance,  or  the  aid  of  Japanese 
arms;  everywhere  the  Americans  of  the 
North  are  feared.  In  the  Antilles  and  in  Cen- 
tral America  hostility  against  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  invaders  assumes  the  character  of 
a  Latin  crusade."  This  is  a  statement  not 
of  a  theory  but  of  a  condition,  set  forth  by 
a  man  who,  while  somewhat  severe  in  his 
criticism  of  North  American  culture,  is  not 
unfriendly  to  the  United  States,  and  who 
remembers  what  his  country  owes  to  us. 
Yet  he  asserts  that  in  the  United  States, 

against  the  policy  of  respect  for  Latin 
liberties  are  ranged  the  instincts  of  a  tri- 
umphant plutocracy." 

The  strident  protest  in  this  book  has  not 
gone  out  without  finding  a  ready  echo  in 
South  America.  Even  in  Peru,  long  our  best 
friend  on  the  Southern  continent,  the  lead- 
ing daily  papers  have  during  the  past  year 
shown  an  increasing  tendency  to  criticise 
our  actions  and  suspect  our  motives.  Their 
suspicion  goes  so  far  as  actually  to  turn 
I  74  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

friendly  words  against  us.  Last  September 
a  successful  American  diplomat,  addressing 
a  distinguished  gathering  of  manufacturers 
in  New  York,  was  quoted  all  over  South 
America  as  stating  that  the  United  States 
did  not  desire  territorial  expansion,  but  only 
commercial,  and  that  the  association  should 
combat  all  idea  of  territorial  expansion  if  any 
statesman  proposed  it,  as  this  was  the  only 
way  to  gain  the  confidence  of  South  Amer- 
ica. This  remark  was  treated  as  evidence 
of  Machiavellian  politics.  One  journalist  ex- 
citedly exclaimed,  "Who  does  not  see  in 
this  paternal  interest  a  brutal  and  cynical 
sarcasm?  Who  talks  of  confidence  when  one 
of  the  most  thoughtful  South  American  au- 
thorities, Francisco  Garcia  Calderon,  gives 
us  once  more  the  cry,  no  longer  premature, 
1  Let  us  be  alert  and  on  our  guard  against 
Yankeeism." 

Even  the  agitation  against  the  Putumayo 
atrocities  is  misunderstood.  "To  no  one  is  it 
a  secret, "says  one  Latin-American  writer, 
"that  all  these  scandalous  accusations  only 
serve  to  conceal  the  vehement  desire  to  im- 
press American  and  English  influence  on  the 
C  75  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

politics  of  the  small  countries  of  South  Amer- 
ica ;  and  they  can  scarcely  cover  the  shame 
of  the  utilitarian  end  that  lies  behind  it  all. " 
Another  instance  of  the  attitude  of  the 
Latin-American  press  is  shown  in  a  recent 
article  in  one  of  the  leading  daily  papers  in 
Lima,  the  government  organ.  In  the  middle 
of  its  front  page,  in  a  two-column  space, 
is  an  article  with  these  headlines:  "NORTH 
AMERICAN  EXCESSES — THE  TERRIBLE  LYNCH- 
INGS — AND  THEY  TALK  OF  THE  PUTUMAYO!  ' ' 
The  gist  of  the  article  may  easily  be  imagined . 
It  begins  with  these  words:  "While  the 
Saxons  of  the  world  are  producing  a  deaf- 
ening cry  over  the  crimes  of  the  Putumayo, 
imagining  them  to  be  like  a  dance  of  death, 
and  giving  free  rein  to  such  imaginings; 
while  the  American  government  resolves  to 
send  a  commission  that  may  investigate  what 
atrocities  are  committed  in  those  regions, 
there  was  published,  as  regards  the  United 
States,  in  '  La  Razon '  of  Buenos  Aires,  a 
fortnight  ago,  the  following  note,  signifi- 
cant of  the  'lofty  civilization  and  high  jus- 
tice' of  the  great  Republic  of  the  North." 
Here  follows  a  press  dispatch  describing  one 
C  76  J 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  the  terrible  lynchings  which  only  too  often 
happen  in  the  United  States.  Then  the  Peru- 
vian editor  goes  on  to  say,  ' '  Do  we  realize 
that  in  the  full  twentieth  century,  when 
there  is  not  a  single  country  in  the  world 
whose  inhabitants  are  permitted  to  supersede 
justice  by  summary  punishment,  there  are 
repeatedly  taking  place,  almost  daily,  in  the 
United  States,  lynchings  like  that  of  which 
we  are  told  in  the  telegraphic  dispatch  ? ' ' 

This  propaganda  is  bearing  fruit.  Already 
there  is  talk  of  defensive  alliances  between 
various  groups  of  states.  Two,  if  not  three, 
distinguished  statesmen  and  orators  are  ac- 
tually touring  Latin  America  to  see  what 
can  be  done. 

Meanwhile,  conscious  of  our  own  recti- 
tude, we  believe  all  will  come  out  well  in  the 
end,  at  the  same  time  still  clinging  to  our 
sacred  shibboleths.  The  Monroe  Doctrine 
*  *  which  blesses  and  revivifies  the  world ' ' 
is  one  of  the  most  respected  of  them  all. 

The  result  of  our  present  attitude  is  that 

the  leading  powers  of  South  America  are 

already  on  the  road  toward  what  is  known 

as  the  "A  B  C,"  a  kind  of  triple  alliance 

C  77] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

between  Argentina,  Brazil,  and  Chile,  with 
the  definite  object  of  opposing  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  United  States. 

A  recent  writer  in  a  Spanish  periodical, 
in  discussing  this  policy,  attributes  it  to  the 
''instinct  of  self-preservation  that  impels 
the  South  American  countries  to  draw  to- 
gether and  to  increase  their  armaments." 
He  mentions  the  summary  way  in  which 
we  attempted  to  dispose  of  the  Alsop  claim 
as  an  example  of  how  the  South  Amer- 
ican republics  may  be  treated.  He  feels  that 
the  slightest  fault  committed  by  any  Latin- 
American  power,  that  affects  seriously  the 
interests  of  any  one  of  the  great  powers, 
generally  results  in  the  sending  of  an  ulti- 
matum, and  in  the  humiliation  of  the  Latin- 
American  country. 

The  Spanish  author  further  points  out  the 
significant  fact  that  the  "A  B  C"  alliance 
is  based  on  the  constantly  increasing  naval 
resources  of  the  three  leading  South  Amer- 
ican republics.  Do  we  realize  that  Argen- 
tina will  soon  have  in  commission  two  of 
the  most  powerful  dreadnoughts  in  exist- 
ence, and  that  the  construction  of  a  third  is 
C-78  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

contemplated?  Yet  in  addition  to  her  pres- 
ent battleships  and  protected  cruisers,  she 
has  a  fleet  of  forty  torpedo  boats  and  has 
been  purchasing  submarines.  Chile  has  like- 
wise contracted  for  two  first-class  dread- 
noughts and  is  considering  a  third.  She  is 
also  purchasing  torpedo  boats  and  sub- 
marines. Brazil  has  actually  in  commission 
three  first-class  dreadnoughts,  seven  cruis- 
ers, fifteen  torpedo  boats,  and  a  number  of 
submarines. 

Undoubtedly  our  neighbors  feel  that  they 
must  do  something  to  counteract  that  well- 
known  willingness  of  the  American  people 
to  find  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  inter- 
fering and  intervening ;  for  example,  for  re- 
lieving Mexico  of  Texas  and  California,  for 
taking  Porto  Rico  from  Spain,  for  sending 
armies  into  Cuba,  for  taking  Guantanamo 
Bay,  for  handling  the  customs  receipts  of 
Santo  Domingo,  for  taking  a  strip  of  terri- 
tory which  (South  Americans  believe)  be- 
longs to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  for  send- 
ing troops  into  Nicaragua,  and  for  mobiliz- 
ing an  army  on  the  Mexican  frontier.  (In 
regard  to  the  latter  point,  it  may  be  stated 

1 79 : 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

in  passing  that  it  is  not  the  custom  for  South 
American  nations  to  mobilize  an  army  on  a 
neighbor's  frontier  merely  because  that  coun- 
try is  engaged  in  civil  war  or  revolution.) 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  talk  of  alliances 
is  in  the  air  ?  Are  we  to  continue  holding  to 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  despite  all  warning? 

VI 

Is  it  worth  our  while  to  heed  the  ' '  writing 
on  the  wall"? 

Is  it  not  true  that  it  is  the  present  tend- 
ency of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  claim  that 
the  United  States  is  to  do  whatever  seems 
to  the  United  States  good  and  proper  so  far 
as  the  western  hemisphere  is  concerned? 
Is  there  not  a  dangerous  tendency  in  our 
country  to  believe  so  far  in  our  own  recti- 
tude, that  we  may  be  excused  from  any  re- 
strictions either  in  the  law  of  nations,  or  in 
our  treaty  obligations,  that  seem  unjust, 
trivial,  or  inconvenient,  notwithstanding  the 
established  practices  of  civilized  nations? 
Our  attitude  on  the  Panama  tolls  question, 
our  former  disregard  of  treaty  rights  with 
China,  our  hesitation  at  passing  Mr.  Taft's 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

carefully  considered  arbitration  treaties,  and 
our  willingness  to  read  into  or  read  out  of  ex- 
isting treaties  whatever  appears  to  us  justifi- 
able and  proper,  have  aroused  deep-seated 
suspicion  in  our  Southern  neighbors  which  it 
seems  to  me  we  should  endeavor  to  eradicate 
if  we  have  our  own  highest  good  at  heart. 
Are  we  not  too  much  in  the  state  of  mind 
of  Citizen  Fix-it,  who  was  more  concerned 
with  suppressing  the  noisy  quarrels  of  his 
neighbors  than  with  quietly  solving  his  own 
domestic  difficulties  ?  Could  we  see  ourselves 
as  our  Southern  neighbors  see  us  in  the 
columns  of  their  daily  press,  where  the  em- 
phasis is  still  on  the  prevalence  of  murder 
in  the  United  States,  the  astonishing  con- 
tinuance of  lynching,  the  freedom  from  pun- 
ishment of  a  majority  of  those  who  com- 
mit murder,  our  growing  disregard  of  the 
rights  of  others,  bomb  outrages,  strikes, 
riots,  labor  difficulties,  — could  we  see  these 
things  with  their  eyes,  we  should  realize 
how  bitterly  they  resent  our  assumed  right 
to  intervene  when  they  misbehave  them- 
selves, or  when  a  local  revolution  becomes 
particularly  noisy. 

C   «'    3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

So  firmly  fixed  in  the  Latin-American 
mind  is  the  idea  that  our  foreign  policy  to- 
day means  intervention  and  interference, 
that  comments  on  the  splendid  sanitary  work 
being  done  at  Panama  by  Colonel  Gorgas 
are  tainted  with  this  idea. 

On  the  west  coast  of  South  America 
there  is  a  pest-hole  called  Guayaquil,  which, 
as  Mr.  Bryce  says,  "enjoys  the  reputation 
of  being  the  pest-house  of  the  continent, 
rivalling  for  the  prevalence  and  malignity  of 
its  malarial  fevers  such  dens  of  disease  as 
Fontesvilla  on  the  Pungwe  River  in  South 
Africa  and  the  Guinea  coast  itself,  and  add- 
ing to  these  the  more  swift  and  deadly  yel- 
low fever,  which  has  now  been  practically  ex- 
tirpated from  every  other  part  of  South  Amer- 
ica except  the  banks  of  the  Amazon.  .  .  . 
It  seems  to  be  high  time  that  efforts  should 
be  made  to  improve  conditions  at  a  place 
whose  development  is  so  essential  to  the  de- 
velopment of  Ecuador  itself. ' '  Recent  efforts 
on  the  part  of  far-sighted  Ecuadorian  states- 
men to  remedy  these  conditions  by  employ- 
ing American  sanitary  engineers  and  taking 
advantage  of  the  offers  of  American  capital 

C  8*  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

were  received  by  the  Ecuadorian  populace 
so  ill  as  to  cause  the  fall  of  the  cabinet  and 
the  disgrace  of  the  minister  who  favored 
such  an  experiment  in  modern  sanitation. 

Peru  suffers  from  the  conditions  of  bad 
health  among  her  Northern  neighbors,  and 
yet  the  leading  newspapers  in  Peru,  instead 
of  realizing  how  much  they  had  to  gain  by 
having  Guayaquil  cleaned  up,  united  in  pro- 
testing against  this  symptom  of  '  *  Yanki ' ' 
imperialism,  and  applauded  the  action  of  the 
Ecuador  mob. 

Is  it  worth  while  to  continue  a  foreign 
policy  which  makes  it  so  difficult  for  things 
to  be  done,  things  of  whose  real  advantage 
to  our  neighbors  there  is  no  question? 

The  old  adage,  that  actions  speak  louder 
than  words,  is  perhaps  more  true  in  Latin 
America  than  in  the  United  States.  A  ra- 
cial custom  of  saying  pleasant  things  tends 
toward  a  suspicion  of  the  sincerity  of  pleasant 
things  when  said.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
about  actions.  Latin- American  statesmen 
smiled  and  applauded  when  Secretary  Root, 
in  the  Pan-American  Congress  atRio  Janeiro, 
said:  "We  wish  for  no  victories  but  those 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  peace ;  for  no  territory  except  our  own ; 
for  no  sovereignty  except  the  sovereignty 
over  ourselves.  We  deem  the  independence 
and  equal  rights  of  the  smallest  and  weak- 
est member  of  the  family  of  nations  entitled 
to  as  much  respect  as  those  of  the  greatest 
empire,  and  we  deem  the  observance  of  that 
respect  the  chief  guaranty  of  the  weak  against 
the  oppression  of  the  strong.  We  neither 
claim  nor  desire  any  rights,  or  privileges, 
or  powers  that  we  do  not  freely  concede  to 
every  American  republic.  We  wish  to  in- 
crease our  prosperity,  to  expand  our  trade, 
to  grow  in  wealth,  in  wisdom,  and  in  spirit, 
but  our  conception  of  the  true  way  to  ac- 
complish this  is  not  to  pull  down  others  and 
profit  by  their  ruin,  but  to  help  all  friends 
to  a  common  growth,  that  we  may  all  be- 
come greater  and  stronger  together. 

'  Within  a  few  months,  for  the  first  time, 
the  recognized  possessors  of  every  foot  of 
soil  upon  the  American  continents  can  be, 
and  I  hope  will  be,  represented  with  the 
acknowledged  rights  of  equal  sovereign 
states  in  the  great  World  Congress  at  The 
Hague.  This  will  be  the  world's  formal  and 
84 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

final  acceptance  of  the  declaration  that  no 
part  of  the  American  continents  is  to  be 
deemed  subject  to  colonization.  Let  us  pledge 
ourselves  to  aid  each  other  in  the  full  per- 
formance of  the  duty  to  humanity  which 
that  accepted  declaration  implies;  so  that  in 
time  the  weakest  and  most  unfortunate  of  our 
republics  may  come  to  march  with  equal  step 
by  the  side  of  the  stronger  and  more  fortu- 
nate. Let  us  help  each  other  to  show  that  for 
all  the  races  of  men  the  liberty  for  which  we 
have  fought  and  labored  is  the  twin  sister  of 
justice  and  peace.  Let  us  unite  in  creating 
and  maintaining  and  making  effective  an 
ail-American  public  opinion,  whose  power 
shall  influence  international  conduct  and  pre- 
vent international  wrong,  and  narrow  the 
causes  of  war,  and  forever  preserve  our  free 
lands  from  the  burden  of  such  armaments 
as  are  massed  behind  the  frontiers  of  Europe, 
and  bring  us  ever  nearer  to  the  perfection  of 
ordered  liberty.  So  shall  come  security  and 
prosperity,  production  and  trade,  wealth, 
learning,  the  arts,  and  happiness  for  us  all. 
"Not  in  a  single  conference,  nor  by  a 
single  effort,  can  very  much  be  done.  You 
C  85  1 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

labor  more  for  the  future  than  for  the  pres- 
ent ;  but  if  the  right  impulse  be  given,  if  the 
right  tendency  be  established,  the  work  you 
do  here  will  go  on  among  all  the  millions  of 
people  in  the  American  continents  long  after 
your  final  adjournment,  long  after  your  lives, 
with  incalculable  benefit  to  all  our  beloved 
countries,  which  may  it  please  God  to  con- 
tinue free  and  independent  and  happy  for 
ages  to  come."  [See  Appendix  III.] 

To  this  fine  appeal  a  Peruvian  diplomat 
replies  :'*...  The  art  of  oratory  is  lavish 
with  a  fraternal  idealism,  but  strong  wills 
enforce  their  imperialistic  ambitions.  Al- 
though fully  attentive  to  the  fair-sounding 
promises  of  the  North,  the  statesmen  of  the 
South  refuse  to  believe  in  the  friendship  of 
the  Yankees." 

And  they  felt  that  their  suspicions  of 
us  were  more  than  warranted  by  our  sub- 
sequent actions  in  Cuba,  Santo  Domingo, 
and  Nicaragua.  Our  ultimatum  to  Chile  on 
account  of  the  long-standing  Alsop  claim 
seemed  to  them  an  unmistakably  unfriendly 
act,  and  was  regarded  as  a  virtual  abandon- 
ment by  Secretary  Knox  of  the  policy  enun- 

C  86  II 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

ciated  by  Secretary  Root.  It  swept  away  as 
by  a  devastating  flood  every  vestige  of  the 
smiling  fields  that  Mr.  Root  had  taken  so 
much  trouble  to  plant  and  cultivate. 

Another  unfriendly  act  was  the  neglect 
of  our  Congress  to  provide  a  suitable  appro- 
priation for  the  Second  Pan-American  Sci- 
entific Congress.  Latin -American  Scientific 
Congresses  had  been  held  in  Argentina,  Bra- 
zil, and  Uruguay.  In  1908,  when  it  came 
Chile's  turn,  so  kind  was  her  feeling  toward 
Secretary  Root,  the  United  States  was  asked 
to  join  in  making  the  Fourth  Latin-American 
Scientific  Congress  become  the  First  Pan- 
American.  Every  one  of  the  four  countries 
where  the  international  scientists  met  had 
made  a  suitable,  generous  appropriation  to 
cover  the  expenses  of  the  meeting.  Chile 
felt  that  it  was  worth  while  to  make  a  very 
large  appropriation  in  order  suitably  to  en- 
tertain the  delegates,  to  publish  the  results 
of  the  Congress,  and  to  increase  American 
friendship.  Everything  was  done  to  make 
the  "Yanki"  delegates  feel  that  bygones 
were  bygones  and  the  days  of  Pan-American 
brotherhood  had  come. 

C  »7  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

This  First  Pan-American  Scientific  Con- 
gress selected  Washington  as  the  place  for 
the  Second  Congress,  and  named  October, 
1 9 12 ,  as  the  appointed  time  for  the  meetings . 
But  when  our  State  Department  asked  Con- 
gress for  a  modest  appropriation  of  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars  to  meet  our  international  obli- 
gations for  this  Pan-American  gathering, 
our  billion-dollar  Congress  decided  to  econo- 
mize and  denied  the  appropriation.  When 
the  matter  came  up  again  during  the  Con- 
gress that  has  just  finished  its  sessions,  the 
appropriation  was  recommended  by  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  but  was 
thrown  out  on  a  technical  point  of  order. 

Now,  you  cannot  make  Latin  Americans 
believe  that  the  United  States  is  so  poor 
that  we  cannot  afford  to  entertain  Interna- 
tional Scientific  Congresses  as  Argentina, 
Brazil,  Uruguay,  and  Chile  havedone.They 
argue  that  there  must  be  some  other  reason 
underlying  this  lack  of  courtesy.  No  pleas- 
ant words  or  profuse  professions  of  friend- 
ship and  regard  can  make  the  leading  states- 
men and  scientists  throughout  Latin  Amer- 
ica forget  that  it  was  not  possible  to  hold 
88 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

the  Second  Pan-American  Scientific  Con- 
gress because  the  United  States  did  not  care 
to  spend  the  money  that  was  involved  in 
assuming  her  international  obligations.  Nor 
will  they  forget  that  Chile  spent  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  in  entertaining  the 
First  Pan- American  Scientific  Congress, 
and  that  the  ten  official  delegates  from  the 
United  States  government  enjoyed  the  boun- 
teous Chilean  hospitality  and  were  shown 
every  attention  that  was  befitting  and  proper 
for  the  accredited  representatives  of  the 
United  States. 

In  short,  here  is  a  concrete  case  of  how 
our  present  policy  toward  Latin  America 
justifies  the  Latin- American  attitude  toward 
the  country  that  has  been  maintaining  the 
Monroe  Doctrine.  We  have  given  them  the 
right  to  feel  that  our  policy  is  a  purely  self- 
ish one,  maintained  for  our  own  interest,  and 
not  concerned  with  promoting  international 
goodwill  —  at  least  not  when  it  costs  any 
cash.  Is  it  fair  to  ourselves  to  continue  to 
maintain  a  doctrine  which  is  open  to  such 
an  interpretation? 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
VII 

It  is  conceivable  that  there  may  come  a  day 
when  threatened  foreign  invasion  or  racial 
migration  will  make  it  appear  advisable  for 
us  to  reassert  the  principles  of  the  original 
doctrine  of  America  for  the  Americans.  At 
present,  to  be  sure,  the  "ABC"  powers 
regard  the  original  Monroe  Doctrine  as  long 
since  outgro\vn,  and  as  being  merely  a  dis- 
play of  insolence  and  conceit  on  our  part. 
With  Brazil  now  owning  the  largest  dread- 
noughts in  the  world ;  with  Argentina  and 
Chile  building  equally  good  ones ;  with  the 
fact  that  the  European  nations  have  long 
since  lost  their  tendency  toward  monarchical 
despotism,  and  are  in  fact  quite  as  demo- 
cratic as  many  American  republics,  it  does 
seem  a  bit  ridiculous  for  us  to  pretend  that 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  a  necessary  element 
in  our  foreign  policy. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  those  who  think 
that  the  most  natural  outlet  for  the  crowded 
Asiatic  nations  is  to  be  found  in  South  Amer- 
ica, and  that  Japan  and  China  will  soon  be 
knocking  most  loudly  for  admission. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

There  are  already  fifteen  thousand  Chi- 
nese in  Peru.  They  readily  assimilate  with 
the  Peruvians. 

'  The  Chinese  colony  is  rich  and  influ- 
ential; it  has  taken  firm  root  in  this  new 
land,  while  it  retains  undiminished  its  pride 
of  race  and  its  active  sympathies  for  the 
progressive  movement  in  China." 

Peru,  as  well  as  Bolivia,  Ecuador,  and 
Colombia,  is  still  overwhelmingly  Indian  in 
population.  Dr.  Hrdlicka,  one  of  the  lead- 
ing authorities  on  American  Anthropology, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  peoples  of  North- 
eastern Asia  closely  resemble  the  American 
aborigines.  It  seems  not  improbable  that 
South  America  was  once  colonized  largely 
by  Asiatics.  It  seems  to  me  equally  probable 
that  a  similar  movement  may  happen  again. 

A  recent  writer  on  "the  Yellow  Peril," 
Mr.  Bland,  for  many  years  the  London 
'Times"  correspondent  in  Peking,  and  a 
leading  authority  on  Chinese  history  and  pol- 
itics, has  even  ventured  to  predict  that  Asiatic 
"emigration  to  the  tropical  and  sub-tropi- 
cal countries  of  South  America  is  certain  to 
develop  rapidly  in  proportion  to  the  devel- 

C  »>  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

opment  of  direct  means  of  communication 
which  will  follow  from  the  opening  of  the 
Panama  Canal.  The  Cantonese,  held  back 
from  other  fields  of  activity,  will  assuredly 
seek  them,  as  rapidly  as  possible,  in  those 
regions  of  Brazil,  Peru,  Ecuador,  Colombia, 
and  Chile,  where  agricultural  and  other  work 
is  essentially  a  question  of  labor,  and  not  of 
white  labor. 

"  Economically  speaking,  the  develop- 
ment of  husbandry  and  industry  in  these  re- 
gions by  the  labor  of  Orientals  would  appear 
to  offer  the  only  practical  solution  of  problems 
upon  which,  in  no  small  degree,  depends  the 
material  welfare  of  the  human  race.  Politi- 
cally, however,  the  possibility  of  large  num- 
bers of  Chinese  and  Japanese  settling  on  the 
American  continent  opens  up  prospects  of 
new  racial  difficulties  in  the  future.  Herein 
the  separate  interests  of  individual  South 
American  republics  may  well  be  found  to 
conflict  with  those  Pan-American  or  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  ideas  which  lately  found  ex- 
pression in  the  resolution  of  the  United  States 
Senate  to  forbid  the  acquisition  by  Japan 
of  'fishing  rights'  and  a  harbor  on  the 

C  92  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Mexican  coast.  For,  where  the  present-day 
Cantonese  go,  as  settlers,  they  will  assur- 
edly take  root,  and  where  they  take  root  they 
will  speedily  increase  and  multiply. 

"In  the  Chinese  people's  collective  aver- 
sion to  starvation,  and  in  their  partial  but 
increasing  perception  of  ways  and  means 
to  avert  that  unpleasant  end,  by  processes 
of  'peaceful  penetration'  beyond  China's 
frontiers,  we  may  perceive,  I  think,  dimly 
outlined  against  the  horizon  of  the  future, 
the  Yellow  Peril  racial." 

The  Asiatic  question  is  certain  to  arise 
sooner  or  later  in  South  America.  At  pres- 
ent Brazil's  attitude  toward  the  Japanese  is 
in  striking  contrast  to  that  of  California.  A 
Tokyo  newspaper  reports  that  the  State  of 
Sao  Paulo  offers  abundant  grants  of  land, 
the  establishment  of  agricultural  experiment 
stations  and  schools  at  the  cost  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  the  payment  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  expenses  of  transportation.  Sev- 
eral Japanese  agents  have  made  a  careful 
study  of  the  soil  and  climatic  conditions  in 
Sao  Paulo.  One  of  these  Japanese  agricul- 
tural experts  stated  recently  that  there  were 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

four  thousand  Japanese  immigrants  in  Bra- 
zil,— that  both  government  and  public  were 
decidedly  friendly  toward  the  Japanese,  and 
that  the  Brazilian  people  entertained  no  prej- 
udice against  them.  Furthermore,  they  are 
not  discriminated  against  in  the  matter  of 
naturalization.  Any  Japanese  who  owns  land 
in  Brazil,  or  who  has  married  a  Brazilian 
wife,  may  become  a  citizen. 

Argentina  is  also  friendly  toward  the  Jap- 
anese. The  annual  commercial  value  of  her 
products  is  over  $150  per  capita,  a  remark- 
able result  of  the  efforts  of  a  country  which 
still  has  enormous  areas  of  unoccupied  land. 
Nothing  could  give  more  eloquent  proof  of 
the  splendor  of  the  national  patrimony.  This 
also  indicates  the  immense  value  of  immi- 
gration to  Argentina,  as  it  is  obvious  that 
every  citizen  is  of  great  potential  importance 
and  can  be  of  mutual  advantage  both  to 
himself  and  to  the  state. 

Three  years  ago,  speaking  at  a  meeting 
in  Tokyo  of  the  South  America  Society, 
the  Argentine  Charge  d' Affaires  is  reported 
as  praising  his  country  as  open  to  all  the 
world,  "unlike  that  great  power  in  North 
C  94  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

America,  which  closed  its  doors  under  the 
Monroe  Doctrine." 

The  confusion  in  Baron  de  Marchi's 
mind,  whereby  our  Asiatic  exclusion  policy 
is  considered  to  be  part  of  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, shows  how  inclusive  and  representa- 
tive of  our  foreign  policy  this  shibboleth  has 
become. 

A  French  writer,  looking  on  the  turning 
of  the  tide  of  Asiatic  emigration  from  North 
to  South  America,  wrote  in  a  contemporary 
periodical:  "Perhaps  the  day  may  come 
when  the  competition  of  Japanese  labor  will 
provoke,  here  aselsewhere,  rivalries  and  dis- 
trust ;  but  at  present  it  is  almost  nil.  In  this 
vast  colonization  field  of  Latin  America  the 
Japanese  can  themselves  take  part  in  the 
cultivation  of  waste  lands,  enlarging  the 
circle  of  their  activity,  and  promoting  their 
interests  and  their  influence,  for  the  greater 
glory  of  the  Land  of  the  Rising  Sun." 

The  incomparable  ad  vantages  of  the  South 
American  east  coast  and  the  tremendous 
possibilities  here  for  the  immigrant  have 
led  the  Japanese  government  to  subsidize 
a  direct  steamship  service  via  the  Cape  of 

:  95  n 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

Good  Hope.  Another  Japanese  line  running 
via  Honolulu  taps  the  west  coast.  Already 
there  is  hardly  a  city  in  Peru  that  has  not  a 
Japanese  barber  shop.  And  the  Peruvians 
are  beginning  to  protest. 

Is  the  western  hemisphere  to  become 
Orientalized?  The  people  of  Asia  may  be 
welcome  to-day  and  unwelcome  to-morrow. 
Are  they  to  come  without  limit?  If  we  de- 
cide that  they  should  enter,  well  and  good ; 
but  if  we  decide  against  such  a  policy,  we 
shall  be  in  a  much  stronger  position  to  carry 
out  that  plan  if  we  have  united  with  the 
"ABC"  powers. 

If  we  still  fear  aggression,  and  desire  to 
prevent  a  partition  of  South  America  on  the 
lines  of  the  partition  of  Africa,  let  us  bury 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  declare  an  entirely 
new  policy,  a  policy  that  is  based  on  intel- 
ligent appreciation  of  the  present  status  of 
the  leading  American  powers ;  let  us  declare 
our  desire  to  join  with  the  "ABC"  powers 
in  protecting  the  weaker  parts  of  America 
against  any  imaginable  aggressions  by  the 
European  or  Asiatic  nations. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
VIII 

There  is  another  side  to  the  question  :  some 
of  the  defenders  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
state  quite  frankly  that  they  are  selfish,  and 
that  from  the  selfish  point  of  view,  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  should  at  all  costs  be  main- 
tained. They  argue  that  our  foreign  com- 
merce would  suffer  were  Europe  permitted 
to  have  a  free  hand  in  South  America.  Even 
on  this  very  point  it  seems  to  me  that  they 
make  a  serious  mistake. 

You  can  seldom  sell  goods  to  a  man  who 
dislikes  you  except  when  you  have  some- 
thing which  is  far  better  or  cheaper  than  he 
can  get  anywhere  else.  Furthermore,  if  he 
distrusts  you,  he  is  not  going  to  judge  your 
goods  fairly,  or  to  view  the  world's  market 
with  an  unprejudiced  eye.  This  can  scarcely 
be  denied.  Every  one  knows  that  a  friendly 
smile  or  cordial  greeting  and  the  mainte- 
nance of  friendly  relations  are  essential  to 
"holding  one's  customers."  Accordingly, 
it  seems  that  even  from  this  selfish  point  of 
view,  which  some  Americans  are  willing  to 
take,  it  is  absolutely  against  our  own  inter- 

C  97  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

ests  to  maintain  this  elder-brother- with-the- 
stick  policy,  which  typifies  the  new  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

International  trade  is  largely  a  matter  of 
sentiment,  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not 
sell  any  American-made  goods. 

Furthermore,  Germany  is  getting  around 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  is  actually  mak- 
ing a  peaceful  conquest  of  South  America 
which  will  injure  us  just  as  much  as  if  we 
had  allowed  her  to  make  a  military  con- 
quest of  the  Southern  republics.  She  is  win- 
ning South  American  friendship,  and  has 
planted  colonies,  one  of  which,  in  southern 
Brazil,  has  three  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand people  in  it, — as  large  a  population 
as  that  of  Vermont,  and  nearly  as  large  as 
that  of  Montana.  She  is  taking  pains  to  edu- 
cate her  young  business  men  in  the  Spanish 
language,  and  to  send  them  out  equipped  to 
capture  Spanish  American  trade.  We  have 
a  saying  that  "Trade  follows  the  flag." 
Germany  has  magnificent  steamers,  flying 
the  German  flag,  giving  fortnightly  service 
to  every  important  port  in  South  America, 
—  ports  where  the  American  flag  is  practi- 
C  98  ]] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

cally  never  seen .  She  has  her  banks  and  busi- 
ness houses  which  have  branches  in  the 
interior  cities.  By  their  means  she  is  able 
to  keep  track  of  American  commerce,  to 
know  what  we  are  doing,  and  at  what  rates. 
Laughing  in  her  sleeve  at  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine as  an  antiquated  policy,  which  only 
makes  it  easier  for  her  to  do  a  safe  business, 
Germany  is  engaged  in  the  peaceful  con- 
quest of  Spanish  America. 

To  be  sure,  we  are  not  standing  still, 
and  we  are  fighting  for  the  same  trade  that 
she  is,  but  our  soldiers  are  handicapped  by 
the  presence  of  the  very  Doctrine  that  was 
intended  to  strengthen  our  position  in  the 
New  World.  Is  this  worth  while? 

No  one  has  appreciated  the  possibilities 
and  the  advantages  of  sincere  hearty  friend- 
ship with  South  America  more  than  Mr. 
Root.  After  his  return  from  South  America 
he  made  a  notable  speech  before  the  Trans- 
Mississippi  Commercial  Congress  at  Kan- 
sas City,  on  November  20,  1906,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  said: 

'This  is  only  the  beginning;  the  coffee 
and  rubber  of  Brazil,  the  wheat  and  beef 
I  99  1 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

and  hides  of  Argentina  and  Uruguay,  the 
silver  and  the  nitrates  of  Chile,  the  copper 
and  tin  of  Bolivia,  the  silver  and  gold  and 
cotton  and  sugar  of  Peru,  are  but  samples 
of  what  the  soil  and  mines  of  that  won- 
derful continent  are  capable  of  yielding. 
Ninety-seven  per  cent  of  the  territory  of 
South  America  is  occupied  by  ten  independ- 
ent republics  living  under  constitutions  sub- 
stantially copied  or  adapted  from  our  own. 
Under  the  new  conditions  of  tranquillity  and 
security  which  prevail  in  most  of  them, 
their  eager  invitation  to  immigrants  from 
the  Old  World  will  not  long  pass  unheeded. 
The  pressure  of  population  abroad  will  in- 
evitably turn  its  streams  of  life  and  labor 
toward  those  fertile  fields  and  valleys.  The 
streams  have  already  begun  to  flow;  more 
than  two  hundred  thousand  immigrants  en- 
tered the  Argentine  Republic  last  year;  they 
are  coming  this  year  at  the  rate  of  over  three 
hundred  thousand.  Many  thousands  of 
Germans  have  already  settled  in  southern 
Brazil.  They  are  most  welcome  in  Brazil; 
they  are  good  and  useful  citizens  there, 
as  they  are  here;  I  hope  that  many  more 

[    100    ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

will  come  to  Brazil  and  every  other  South 
American  country,  and  add  their  vigorous 
industry  and  good  citizenship  to  the  up- 
building of  their  adopted  home. 

'With  the  increase  of  population  in  such 
a  field,  under  free  institutions,  with  the 
fruits  of  labor  and  the  rewards  of  enterprise 
secure,  the  production  of  wealth  and  the  in- 
crease of  purchasing  power  will  afford  a  mar- 
ket for  the  commerce  of  the  world  worthy  to 
rank  even  with  the  markets  of  the  Orient  as 
the  goal  of  business  enterprise.  The  mate- 
rial resources  of  South  America  are  in  some 
important  respects  complementary  to  our 
own ;  that  continent  is  weakest  where  North 
America  is  strongest  as  a  field  for  manu- 
factures :  it  has  comparatively  little  coal  and 
iron.  In  many  respects  the  people  of  the  two 
continents  are  complementary  to  each  other ; 
the  South  American  is  polite,  refined,  cul- 
tivated, fond  of  literature  and  of  expression 
and  of  the  graces  and  charms  of  life,  while 
the  North  American  is  strenuous,  intense, 
utilitarian.  Where  we  have  less  of  the  cheer- 
ful philosophy  which  finds  sources  of  hap- 
piness in  the  existing  conditions  of  life,  they 

C  1°'  D 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

have  less  of  the  inventive  faculty  which 
strives  continually  to  increase  the  productive 
power  of  man  and  lower  the  cost  of  manu- 
facture. The  chief  merits  of  the  peoples  of 
the  two  continents  are  different ;  their  chief 
defects  are  different.  Mutual  intercourse  and 
knowledge  cannot  fail  greatly  to  benefit 
both.  Each  can  learn  from  the  other;  each 
can  teach  much  to  the  other,  and  each  can 
contribute  greatly  to  the  development  and 
prosperity  of  the  other.  A  large  part  of  their 
products  find  no  domestic  competition  here ; 
a  large  part  of  our  products  will  find  no 
domestic  competition  there.  The  typical  con- 
ditions exist  for  that  kind  of  trade  which  is 
profitable,  honorable,  and  beneficial  to  both 
parties." 

This  being  so,  why  spoil  the  game  by 
an  irritating  and  antiquated  foreign  policy 
which  makes  it  easier  for  our  competitors 
and  harder  for  our  own  merchants? 

IX 

At  all  events,  let  us  face  clearly  and  frankly 
the  fact  that  the  maintenance  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  is  going  to  cost  the  United  States 

102 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

an  immense  amount  of  trouble,  money,  and 
men. 

As  has  been  repeatedly  pointed  out  in 
Europe,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  as  strong 
as  the  American  army  and  navy,  and  no 
stronger. 

Carried  out  to  its  logical  conclusion,  it 
means  a  policy  of  suzerainty  and  interfer- 
ence which  will  earn  us  the  increasing  ha- 
tred of  our  neighbors,  the  dissatisfaction  of 
Europe,  the  loss  of  commercial  opportuni- 
ties, and  the  forfeiture  of  time  and  atten- 
tion which  would  much  better  be  given  to 
settling  our  own  difficult  internal  problems. 
The  continuance  of  adherence  to  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  offers  opportunities  to  scheming 
statesmen  to  distract  public  opinion  from 
the  necessity  of  concentrated  attention  at 
home,  by  arousing  mingled  feelings  of  jin- 
goism and  self-importance  in  attempting  to 
correct  the  errors  of  our  neighbors. 

If  we  persist  in  maintaining  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  we  shall  find  that  its  legitimate, 
rational,  and  logical  growth  will  lead  us  to 
an  increasing  number  of  large  expenditures, 
where  American  treasure  and  American 
C  103  ]] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

blood  will  be  sacrificed  in  efforts  to  remove 
the  mote  from  our  neighbor's  eye  while 
overlooking  the  beam  in  our  own. 

The  character  of  the  people  who  inhabit 
the  tropical  American  republics  is  such,  the 
percentage  of  Indian  blood  is  so  great,  the 
little-understood  difficulties  of  life  in  those 
countries  are  so  far-reaching,  and  the  psy- 
chological tendencies  of  the  people  so  differ- 
ent from  our  own,  that  opportunities  will 
continually  arise  which  will  convince  us  that 
our  intervention  is  required  if  we  continue  to 
hold  to  the  tenets  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

It  is  for  us  to  face  the  question  fairly,  and 
to  determine  whether  it  is  worth  while  to  con- 
tinue any  longer  on  a  road  which  leads  to 
such  great  expenditures,  and  which  means 
the  loss  of  international  friendships. 

That  international  goodwill  is  a  desider- 
atum, it  needs  no  words  of  mine  to  prove  to 
anyone.  Looked  at  from  every  point  of  view, 
selfishly  and  unselfishly,  ethically,  morally, 
commercially,  and  diplomatically,  we  desire 
to  live  at  peace  with  our  neighbors  and  to 
promote  international  friendship. 

In  this  way  we  shall  have  time  to  give 

L 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

our  minds  to  the  problem  of  building  up 
government  by  the  people  which  shall  give 
prosperity  and  peace  and  individual  oppor- 
tunity to  every  citizen. 

In  this  great  work  we  can  have  able  assist- 
ance if  we  accept  a  reasonable  and  rational 
attitude  toward  the  great  states  of  South 
America.  This  mutual  help  may  be,  as  Mr. 
Root  said  to  the  hospitable  people  of  Bahia, 
"by  sympathy  and  friendship,  by  inter- 
course, exchange  of  opinions  and  experience, 
each  giving  to  the  other  the  benefits  of  its 
success,  and  helping  the  other  to  find  out  the 
causes  of  its  failures.  We  can  both  aid  each 
other  by  the  peaceful  exchanges  of  trade. 
Our  trade — yes,  our  trade  is  valuable,  and 
may  it  increase ;  may  it  increase  to  the  wealth 
and  prosperity  of  both  nations.  But  there 
is  something  more  than  trade ;  there  is  the 
aspiration  to  make  life  worth  the  living,  that 
uplifts  humanity.  To  accomplish  success  in 
this  is  the  goal  which  we  seek  to  attain. 
There  is  the  happiness  of  life ;  and  what  is 
trade  if  it  does  not  bring  happiness  to  life  ? 
In  this  the  dissimilarity  of  our  peoples  may 
enable  us  to  aid  each  other.  We  of  the  North 
[  105  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

are  somewhat  more  sturdy  in  our  efforts, 
and  there  are  those  who  claim  we  work  too 
hard.  We  are  too  strenuous  in  our  lives. 
I  wish  that  my  people  could  gather  some  of 
the  charm  and  grace  of  living  in  Bahia.  We 
may  give  to  you  some  added  strength  and 
strenuousness ;  you  may  give  to  us  some  of 
the  beauty  of  life.  I  wish  I  could  make  you 
feel — I  wish  still  more  that  I  could  make 
my  countrymen  feel — what  delight  I  expe- 
rience in  visiting  your  city,  and  in  observing 
the  delightful  combination  of  the  bright, 
cheerful  colors  which  adorn  your  homes 
and  daily  life,  with  the  beautiful  tones  that 
time  has  given  to  the  century -old  walls  and 
battlements  that  look  down  upon  your  noble 
bay.  The  combination  has  seemed  to  me, 
as  I  have  looked  upon  it  to-day,  to  be  most 
remarkable,  and  these  varying  scenes  of 
beauty  have  seemed  to  be  suggestive  of  what 
nations  can  do  for  each  other,  some  giving 
the  beauty  and  the  tender  tones,  some  giv- 
ing the  sturdy  and  strenuous  effort." 

Cooperation,  and  not  patronizing  tutelage, 
should  be  our  policy. 

From  the  unselfish  point  of  view,  and 

C  lo6  H 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

from  the  point  of  view  of  the  world's  peace 
and  happiness,  there  seems  to  be  no  ques- 
tion that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  no  longer 
worth  while. 

Mr.  Bryce,  in  an  able  exposition  inliis  re- 
cent "  South  America,"  has  clearly  pointed 
out  that  the  Spanish  American's  regard  for 
the  United  States,  and  his  confidence  in  its 
purposes,  have  never  even  recovered  from 
the  blow  given  by  the  Mexican  War  of  1846, 
and  the  annexation  of  California.  For  many 
years,  a  political  tie  between  ourselves  and 
the  other  American  republics  was  found, 
Mr.  Bryce  says,  in  our  declared  intention 
' '  to  resist  any  attempt  by  European  Powers 
either  to  overthrow  republican  government 
in  any  American  state  or  to  attempt  annex- 
ation of  its  territory."  So  long  as  any  such 
action  was  feared  from  Europe,  the  protec- 
tion thus  promised  was  welcome,  and  the 
United  States  felt  a  corresponding  interest 
in  their  clients.  But  circumstances  alter 
cases.  To-day,  when  apprehensions  of  the 
old  kind  have  vanished,  and  when  some  of 
the  South  American  states  feel  themselves 
already  powerful,  one  is  told  that  they  have 

L  107  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

begun  to  regard  the  situation  with  different 
eyes.  "Since  there  are  no  longer  rain-clouds 
coming  up  from  the  east,  why  should  a 
friend,  however  well  intentioned,  insist  on 
holding  an  umbrella  over  us  ?  We  are  quite 
able  to  do  that  for  ourselves  if  necessary." 
Mr.  Bryce  continues:  "It  is  as  the  disin- 
terested, the  absolutely  disinterested  and 
unselfish,  advocate  of  peace  and  goodwill, 
that  the  United  States  will  have  most  in- 
fluence in  the  western  hemisphere,  and  that 
influence,  gently  and  tactfully  used,  maybe 
of  incalculable  service  to  mankind." 

So  widespread  and  malevolent  are  the 
agencies  now  at  work  throughout  Latin 
America  to  prejudice  the  public  against  the 
United  States,  we  ought  to  make  every  effort 
to  have  our  real  feelings  known.  Our  for- 
eign policy  must  be  clearly  formulated.  We 
ought  to  take  one  road  or  the  other,  either 
to  publicly  repudiate  this  outgrown  Monroe 
Doctrine,  or  else  accept  the  logical  conse- 
quences and  hold  ourselves  responsible  for 
the  maintenance  of  law  and  order  through- 
out the  Latin- American  republics.  This  last 
is  such  an  enormous,  not  to  say  impertinent, 

C  108  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

undertaking,  that  it  is  really  unthinkable. 
Why  should  we  not  definitely  abandon  a  doc- 
trine which  is  regarded  with  deep  resent- 
ment and  ill-concealed  antagonism  by  many 
of  the  best  citizens  of  South  America,  and 
which  enables  Europe  to  hold  us  responsible 
for  the  actions  of  any  member  of  the  lawless 
group  near  the  Caribbean  Sea? 


Finally,  if  we  agree  to  turn  our  backs  on 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  whither  shall  we  go? 
What  road  shall  we  take  in  order  to  secure 
the  friendship  of  our  neighbors?  How  can  we 
show  them  that  we  wish  to  be  an  "abso- 
lutely disinterested  and  unselfish  advocate 
of  peace  and  goodwill"  ? 

These  are  questions  that  require  most 
serious  thought  and  attention.  I  cannot 
pretend  to  have  found  the  best  solution  for 
this  knotty  problem.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  we  form  an  alliance  with  the  "ABC" 
powers. 

It  will  not  be  easy  to  secure  such  an  alli- 
ance. They  will  answer  that  such  a  proposal 
is  only  another  method  of  imperialistic  ab- 
[  109  ] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

sorption.  There  must  be  no  halfway  mea- 
sures. No  doubt  whatever  must  be  allowed 
to  remain  that  we  are  really  in  earnest.  As 
a  starter  we  might  let  it  be  known  that  we 
should  be  glad  to  exchange  ambassadors  with 
Argentina  and  Chile  as  well  as  with  Brazil 
and  Mexico.  This  would  show  that  we  have 
learned  to  regard  them  as  worthy  of  respect. 

This  could  be  followed  by  other  acts  of  in- 
ternational courtesy  which  would  soon  pave 
the  way  for  a  friendly  alliance  that  should 
take  the  place  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Incidentally,  we  might  do  well  to  assume 
with  the  best  grace  we  may  our  obligations 
to  provide  handsomely  for  the  Second  Pan- 
American  Scientific  Congress. 

Furthermore,  the  very  next  time  any 
awkward  situations  arise  in  one  of  the  less 
firmly  established  republics,  let  us  at  once 
call  a  family  gathering  and  see  what,  if 
anything,  needs  to  be  done. 

If  it  is  necessary  to  maintain  order  in 
some  of  the  weaker  and  more  restless  repub- 
lics, why  not  let  the  decision  be  made,  not 
by  ourselves,  but  by  a  Congress  of  leading 
American  powers  ?  If  it  is  found  necessary 

c  »°  n 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

to  send  armed  forces  into  Central  America 
to  quell  rebellions  that  are  proving  too  much 
for  the  recognized  governments,  why  not 
let  those  forces  consist  not  solely  of  Ameri- 
can marines,  but  of  the  marines  of  Argen- 
tina, Brazil,  and  Chile  as  well? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  would  be  better  to 
ask  one  of  their  squadrons  to  act  alone,  as 
the  representative  of  the  family.  The  im- 
portant thing  is  —  we  must  show  our  good 
faith.  They  doubt  us.  It  must  be  our  busi- 
ness to  convince  them  of  our  integrity. 

Old  ideas,  proverbs,  catchwords,  national 
shibboleths,  die  hard.  No  part  of  our  foreign 
policy  has  ever  been  so  continuously  held 
and  so  popularly  accepted  as  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  Hoary  with  age,  it  has  defied  the 
advance  of  commerce,  the  increase  of  trans- 
portation facilities,  and  the  subjugation  of 
the  yellow-fever  mosquito.  Based  on  a  con- 
dition that  has  long  since  disappeared,  ow- 
ing its  later  growth  and  development  to 
mistaken  ideas,  it  appears  to  our  South 
American  neighbors  to  be  neither  disinter- 
ested nor  unselfish,  but  rather  an  indisput- 

C  "I  3 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

able  evidence  of  our  overweening  national 
conceit. The  very  words '  'Monroe Doctrine' ' 
are  fraught  with  a  disagreeable  significance 
from  our  neighbors'  point  of  view.  There  is 
no  one  single  thing,  nor  any  group  of  things, 
that  we  could  do  to  increase  the  chances  of 
peace  and  harmony  in  the  western  hemi- 
sphere comparable  with  the  definite  statement 
that  we  have  outgrown  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
that  we  realize  that  our  neighbors  in  the 
New  World  are  well  able  to  take  care  of 
themselves,  and  that  we  shall  not  interfere 
in  their  politics  or  send  arms  into  their  terri- 
tory, unless  cordially  invited  to  do  so,  and 
then  only  in  connection  with,  and  by  the  co- 
operation of,  other  members  of  the  family. 
In  some  such  way  as  this  we  can  convince 
"the  other  Americans  "  of  our  good  faith, 
and  of  the  fact  that  we  have  not  "made  up 
our  minds  to  conquer  South  America."  By 
adopting  a  foreign  policy  along  these  lines 
we  can  establish  on  a  broad  and  solid  foun- 
dation the  relations  of  international  peace 
and  goodwill  for  which  the  time  is  ripe, 
but  which  cannot  arrive  till  we  are  convinced 
that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  worth  while. 


APPENDIX 


DOCUMENTS 

ILLUSTRATIVE  OF  THE  GROWTH  OF  THE 
MONROE  DOCTRINE 

I.  The  Original  Doctrine. 

II.  Excerpts  from  Messages  of  President  Roosevelt, 
showing  the  logical  development  of  the  new  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  during  his  administration. 

HI.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  at  its  best,  —  being  the 
speech  of  Secretary  Root  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  July 
31,  1906. 

IV.  The  Last  Phase,  —  the  Lodge  Resolution. 


I 

SELECTED  PARAGRAPHS 

FROM  THE  SEVENTH  ANNUAL  MESSAGE 
OF  PRESIDENT  JAMES  MONROE 

Washington,  December  2, 1823. 

FELLOW -CmzENS  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives :  Many  important  subjects  will  claim  your 
attention  during  the  present  session,  of  which  I  shall 
endeavor  to  give,  in  aid  of  your  deliberations,  a  just 
idea  in  this  communication.  I  undertake  this  duty  with 
diffidence,  from  the  vast  extent  of  the  interests  on  which 
I  have  to  treat  and  of  their  great  importance  to  every 
portion  of  our  Union.  I  enter  on  it  with  zeal  from  a 
thorough  conviction  that  there  never  was  a  period  since 
the  establishment  of  our  Revolution,  when,  regarding 
the  condition  of  the  civilized  world  and  its  bearing 
on  us,  there  was  greater  necessity  for  devotion  in  the 
public  servants  to  their  respective  duties,  or  for  virtue, 
patriotism,  and  union  in  our  constituents. 

Meeting  in  you  a  new  Congress,  I  deem  it  proper 
to  present  this  view  of  public  affairs  in  greater  detail 
than  might  otherwise  be  necessary.  I  do  it,  however, 
with  peculiar  satisfaction,  from  a  knowledge  that  in 
this  respect  I  shall  comply  more  fully  with  the  sound 
principles  of  our  Government.  The  people  being  with 
us  exclusively  the  sovereign,  it  is  indispensable  that  full 
information  be  laid  before  them  on  all  important  sub- 
jects, to  enable  them  to  exercise  that  high  power  with 
complete  effect.  If  kept  in  the  dark,  they  must  be  in- 
competent to  it.  We  are  all  liable  to  error,  and  those 
who  are  engaged  in  the  management  of  public  affairs 

C  U5] 


APPENDIX 

are  more  subject  to  excitement  and  to  be  led  astray  by 
their  particular  interests  and  passions  than  the  great 
body  of  our  constituents,  who,  living  at  home  in  the 
pursuit  of  their  ordinary  avocations,  are  calm  but 
deeply  interested  spectators  of  events  and  of  the  con- 
duct of  those  who  are  parties  to  them.  To  the  people 
every  department  of  the  Government  and  every  indi- 
vidual in  each  are  responsible,  and  the  more  full  their 
information  the  better  they  can  judge  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  policy  pursued  and  the  conduct  of  each  in  regard 
to  it.  From  their  dispassionate  judgment  much  aid  may 
always  be  obtained,  while  their  approbation  will  form 
the  greatest  incentive  and  most  gratifying  reward  for 
virtuous  actions,  and  the  dread  of  their  censure  the  best 
security  against  the  abuse  of  their  confidence.  Their  in- 
terests in  all  vital  questions  are  the  same,  and  the  bond, 
by  sentiment  as  well  as  by  interest,  will  be  proportion- 
ably  strengthened  as  they  are  better  informed  of  the  real 
state  of  public  affairs,  especially  in  difficult  conjectures. 
It  is  by  such  knowledge  that  local  prejudices  and  jealous- 
ies are  surmounted,  and  that  a  national  policy,  extending 
its  fostering  care  and  protection  to  all  the  great  inter- 
ests of  our  Union,  is  formed  and  steadily  adhered  to. 
A  precise  knowledge  of  our  relations  with  foreign 
powers  as  respects  our  negotiations  and  transactions 
with  each  is  thought  to  be  particularly  necessary. 
Equally  necessary  is  it  that  we  should  form  a  just  esti- 
mate of  our  resources,  revenue,  and  progress  in  every 
kind  of  improvement  connected  with  the  national  pros- 
perity and  public  defence.  It  is  by  rendering  justice  to 
other  nations  that  we  may  expect  it  from  them.  It  is 
by  our  ability  to  resent  injuries  and  redress  wrongs  that 
we  may  avoid  them. 

C  ll6  1 


APPENDIX 

At  the  proposal  of  the  Russian  Imperial  Government, 
made  through  the  minister  of  the  Emperor  residing 
here,  a  full  power  and  instructions  have  been  trans- 
mitted to  the  minister  of  the  United  States  at  St.  Peters- 
burg to  arrange  by  amicable  negotiation  the  respective 
rights  and  interests  of  the  two  nations  on  the  northwest 
coast  of  this  continent.  A  similar  proposal  had  been 
made  by  His  Imperial  Majesty  to  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain,  which  has  likewise  been  acceded  to.  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  has  been  desirous  by 
this  friendly  proceeding  of  manifesting  the  great  value 
which  they  have  invariably  attached  to  the  friendship 
of  the  Emperor  and  their  solicitude  to  cultivate  the  best 
understanding  with  his  Government.  In  the  discussions 
to  which  this  interest  has  given  rise  and  in  the  arrange- 
ments by  which  they  may  terminate,  the  occasion  has 
been  judged  proper  for  asserting,  as  a  principle  in 
which  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States  are 
involved,  that  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and 
independent  condition  which  they  have  assumed  and 
maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects 
for  future  colonization  by  any  European  powers. 

The  ministers  who  were  appointed  to  the  Republics  of 
Colombia  and  Buenos  Ayres  during  the  last  session 
of  Congress  proceeded  shortly  afterwards  to  their  des- 
tinations. Of  their  arrival  there  official  intelligence  has 
not  yet  been  received.  The  minister  appointed  to  the 
Republic  of  Chile  will  sail  in  a  few  days.  An  early  ap- 
pointment will  also  be  made  to  Mexico.  A  minister  has 
been  received  from  Colombia,  and  the  other  Govern- 
ments have  been  informed  that  ministers,  or  diplo- 
matic agents  of  inferior  grade,  would  be  received  from 

C  »73 


APPENDIX 

each,  accordingly  as  they  might  prefer  the  one  or  the 
other. 

The  minister  appointed  to  Spain  proceeded  soon 
after  his  appointment  for  Cadiz,  the  residence  of  the 
Sovereign  to  whom  he  was  accredited.  In  approaching 
that  port  the  frigate  which  conveyed  him  was  warned 
off  by  the  commander  of  the  French  squadron  by 
which  it  was  blockaded  and  not  permitted  to  enter, 
although  apprised  by  the  captain  of  the  frigate  of  the 
public  character  of  the  person  whom  he  had  on  board, 
the  landing  of  whom  was  the  sole  object  of  his  pro- 
posed entry.  This  act,  being  considered  an  infringe- 
ment of  the  rights  of  ambassadors  and  of  nations,  will 
form  a  just  cause  of  complaint  to  the  Government  of 
France  against  the  officer  by  whom  it  was  committed. 

A  strong  hope  has  been  long  entertained,  founded 
on  the  heroic  struggle  of  the  Greeks,  that  they  would 
succeed  in  their  contest  and  resume  their  equal  station 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  It  is  believed  that  the 
whole  civilized  world  take  a  deep  interest  in  their  wel- 
fare. Although  no  power  has  declared  in  their  favor, 
yet  none,  according  to  our  information,  has  taken  part 
against  them.  Their  cause  and  their  name  have  pro- 
tected them  from  dangers  which  might  ere  this  have 
overwhelmed  any  other  people.  The  ordinary  calcula- 
tions of  interest  and  of  acquisition  with  a  view  to  ag- 
grandizement, which  mingles  so  much  in  the  transac- 
tions of  nations,  seem  to  have  had  no  effect  in  regard 
to  them.  From  the  facts  which  have  come  to  our  know- 
ledge there  is  good  cause  to  believe  that  their  enemy 
has  lost  forever  all  dominion  over  them ;  that  Greece  will 
become  again  an  independent  nation.  That  she  may 
obtain  that  rank  is  theobject  of  our  most  ardent  wishes. 


APPENDIX 

It  was  stated  at  the  commencement  of  the  last  ses- 
sion that  a  great  effort  was  then  making  in  Spain  and 
Portugal  to  improve  the  condition  of  the  people  of 
those  countries,  and  that  it  appeared  to  be  conducted 
with  extraordinary  moderation.  It  need  scarcely  be 
remarked  that  the  result  has  been  so  far  very  different 
from  what  was  then  anticipated.  Of  events  in  that  quar- 
ter of  the  globe,  with  which  we  have  so  much  inter- 
course and  from  which  we  derive  our  origin,  we  have 
always  been  anxious  and  interested  spectators.  The 
citizens  of  the  United  States  cherish  sentiments  the 
most  friendly  in  favor  of  the  liberty  and  happiness 
of  their  fellow  men  on  that  side  of  the  Atlantic.  In  the 
wars  of  the  European  powers  in  matters  relating  to 
themselves  we  have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it 
comport  with  our  policy  so  to  do.  It  is  only  when  our 
rights  are  invaded  or  seriously  menaced  that  we  resent 
injuries  or  make  preparation  for  our  defence.  With  the 
movements  in  this  hemisphere  we  are  of  necessity  more 
immediately  connected,  and  by  causes  which  must 
be  obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  impartial  observers. 
The  political  system  of  the  allied  powers  is  essentially 
different  in  this  respect  from  that  of  America.  This 
difference  proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in  their  re- 
spective Governments;  and  to  the  defence  of  our  own, 
which  has  been  achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood 
and  treasure,  and  matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most 
enlightened  citizens,  and  under  which  we  have  enjoyed 
unexampled  felicity,  this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We 
owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  United  States  and  those 
powers  to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt 
on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of 


APPENDIX 

this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety. 
With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  Euro- 
pean power  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  inter- 
fere. But  with  the  Governments  who  have  declared  their 
independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  independ- 
ence we  have,  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  princi- 
ples, acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  interposition 
for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or  controlling  in 
any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  power 
in  any  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  un- 
friendly disposition  toward  the  United  States.  In  the 
war  between  those  new  Governments  and  Spain,  we 
declared  our  neutrality  at  the  time  of  their  recognition, 
and  to  this  we  have  adhered,  and  shall  continue  to 
adhere,  provided  no  change  shall  occur  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  competent  authorities  of  this  Gov- 
ernment, shall  make  a  corresponding  change  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  indispensable  to  their  security. 
The  late  events  in  Spain  and  Portugal  shew  that 
Europe  is  still  unsettled.  Of  this  important  fact  no 
stronger  proof  can  be  adduced  than  that  the  allied 
powers  should  have  thought  it  proper,  on  any  principle 
satisfactory  to  themselves,  to  have  interposed  by  force 
in  the  internal  concerns  of  Spain.  To  what  extent  such 
interposition  may  be  carried,  on  the  same  principle,  is 
a  question  in  which  all  independent  powers  whose  gov- 
ernments differ  from  theirs  are  interested,  even  those 
most  remote,  and  surely  none  more  so  than  the  United 
States.  Our  policy  in  regard  to  Europe,  which  was 
adopted  at  an  early  stage  of  the  wars  which  have  so 
long  agitated  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  nevertheless 
remains  the  same,  which  is,  not  to  interfere  in  the  in- 
ternal concerns  of  any  of  its  powers ;  to  consider  the 


APPENDIX 

government  de  facto  as  the  legitimate  government 
for  us;  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  it,  and  to 
preserve  those  relations  by  a  frank,  firm,  and  manly 
policy,  meeting  in  all  instances  the  just  claims  of  every 
power,  submitting  to  injuries  from  none.  But  in  re- 
gard to  those  continents  circumstances  are  eminently 
and  conspicuously  different.  //  is  impossible  that  the 
allied  powers  should  extend  their  political  system  to 
any  portion  of  either  continent  without  endangering  our 
peace  and  happiness ;  nor  can  any  one  believe  that  our 
southern  brethren,  if  left  to  themselves,  would  adopt  it 
of  their  own  accord.  It  is  equally  impossible,  therefore, 
that  we  should  behold  such  interposition  in  any  form 
with  indifference.  If  we  look  to  the  comparative  strength 
and  resources  of  Spain  and  those  new  Governments, 
and  their  distance  from  each  other,  it  must  be  obvious 
that  she  can  never  subdue  them.  //  is  still  the  true  pol- 
icy of  the  United  States  to  leave  the  parties  to  them- 
selves, in  the  hope  that  other  powers  will  pursue  the 
same  course.  (Richardson,  The  Messages  and  Papers 
of  the  Presidents,  vol.  2,  pp.  207-219.) 


II 

EXCERPTS 

FROM  THE  MESSAGES  OF  PRESIDENT  ROOSEVELT 

SHOWING  THE  LOGICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  NEW 

MONROE  DOCTRINE  DURING  HIS  ADMINISTRATION 

<«) 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  should  be  the  cardinal  feature  of 
the  foreign  policy  of  all  the  nations  of  the  two  Amer- 
icas, as  it  is  of  the  United  States.  Just  seventy-eight 

[    121    J 


APPENDIX 

years  have  passed  since  President  Monroe  in  his  annual 
message  announced  that  "The  American  continents 
are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  fu- 
ture colonization  by  any  European  power."  In  other 
words,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  a  declaration  that  there 
must  be  no  territorial  aggrandizement  by  any  non- 
American  power  at  the  expense  of  any  American  power 
on  American  soil.  It  is  in  no  wise  intended  to  give 
cover  to  any  aggression  by  one  New  World  at  the  ex- 
pense of  any  other.  It  is  simply  a  step,  and  a  long  step, 
toward  assuring  the  universal  peace  of  the  world  by 
securing  the  possibility  of  permanent  peace  on  this 
hemisphere. 

During  the  past  century  other  influences  have  es- 
tablished the  permanence  and  independence  of  the 
smaller  states  of  Europe.  Through  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine we  hope  to  be  able  to  safeguard  like  independ- 
ence and  secure  like  permanence  for  the  lesser  among 
the  New  World  nations. 

This  doctrine  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  commercial 
relations  of  any  American  power,  save  that  it  in  truth 
allows  each  one  of  them  a  guaranty  of  the  commercial 
independence  of  the  Americas.  We  do  not  ask  under 
this  doctrine  for  any  exclusive  commercial  dealings 
with  any  other  American  state.  We  do  not  guaran- 
tee any  state  against  punishment  if  it  misconducts  it- 
self, provided  that  punishment  does  not  take  the  form 
of  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  any  non-American 
power. 

Our  attitude  in  Cuba  is  sufficient  guaranty  of  our  own 
good  faith.  We  have  not  the  slightest  desire  to  secure 
any  territory  at  the  expense  of  any  of  our  neighbors. 
We  wish  to  work  with  them  hand  in  hand  so  that  all 

C 


APPENDIX 

of  us  may  be  uplifted  together,  and  we  rejoice  over  the 
good  fortune  of  any  of  them,  we  gladly  hail  their  mate- 
rial prosperity,  and  political  stability,  and  are  concerned 
and  alarmed  if  any  of  them  fall  into  industrial  or 
political  chaos.  We  do  not  wish  to  see  any  Old  World 
military  power  grow  up  on  this  continent,  or  to  be 
compelled  to  become  a  military  power  ourselves.  The 
peoples  of  the  Americas  can  prosper  best  if  left  to  work 
out  their  own  salvation  in  their  own  way.  (57th  Con- 
gress, 1st  session,  1901-1902,  House  Documents,  vol. 
1,  No.  1,  Foreign  Relations,  No.  4268.) 

(*) 

It  is  not  true  that  the  United  States  feels  any  land  hun- 
ger or  entertains  any  projects  as  regards  the  other  na- 
tions of  the  Western  Hemisphere  save  such  as  are  for 
their  welfare.  All  that  this  country  desires  is  to  see  the 
neigh  boring  countries  stable,  orderly,  and  prosperous. 
Any  country  whose  people  conduct  themselves  well  can 
count  upon  our  hearty  friendship.  If  a  nation  shows 
that  it  knows  how  to  act  with  reasonable  efficiency 
and  decency  in  social  and  political  matters,  if  it  keeps 
order  and  pays  its  obligations,  it  need  fear  no  inter- 
ference from  the  United  States.  Chronic  wrongdoing, 
or  an  impotence  which  results  in  a  general  loosening 
of  the  ties  of  civilized  society,  may  in  America  as  else- 
where, ultimately  require  intervention  by  some  civilized 
nation,  and  in  the  Western  Hemisphere,  the  adher- 
ence of  the  United  States  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  may 
force  the  United  States,  however  reluctantly,  in  fla- 
grant cases  of  such  wrongdoing  or  impotence,  to  the 
exercise  of  an  international  police  power.  If  every 
country  washed  by  the  Caribbean  Sea  would  show  the 

C    123  ] 


APPENDIX 

progress  in  stable  and  just  civilization  which,  with  the 
aid  of  the  Platt  Amendment,  Cuba  has  shown  since  our 
troops  left  the  island,  and  which  so  many  of  the  re- 
publics in  both  Americas  are  constantly  and  brilliantly 
showing,  all  questions  of  interference  by  this  Nation 
with  their  affairs  would  be  at  an  end.  Our  interests 
and  those  of  our  southern  neighbors  are  in  reality  iden- 
tical. They  have  great  natural  riches,  and  if  within  their 
borders  the  reign  of  law  and  justice  obtains,  prosper- 
ity is  sure  to  come  to  them.  While  they  thus  obey  the 
primary  laws  of  civilized  nations  they  may  rest  assured 
that  they  will  be  treated  by  us  in  a  spirit  of  cordial 
and  helpful  sympathy.  We  would  interfere  with  them 
only  in  the  last  resort,  and  then  only  if  it  became  evi- 
dent that  their  inability  or  unwillingness  to  do  justice 
at  home  and  abroad  had  violated  the  rights  of  the 
United  States  or  had  invited  foreign  aggression  to  the 
detriment  of  the  entire  body  of  American  nations.  It 
is  a  mere  truism  to  say  that  every  nation,  whether  in 
America  or  anywhere  else,  which  desires  to  maintain 
its  freedom,  its  independence,  must  ultimately  realize 
that  the  rights  of  such  independence  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  responsibility  of  making  good  use  of  it. 
In  asserting  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  taking  such 
steps  as  we  have  taken  in  regard  to  Cuba,  Venezuela, 
and  Panama,  and  in  endeavoring  to  circumscribe  the 
theatre  of  the  war  in  the  Far  East,  and  to  secure  the 
open  door  in  China,  we  have  acted  in  our  own  interest 
as  well  as  in  the  interest  of  humanity  at  large.  (58th 
Congress,  3d  session,  1904-1905,  House  Documents, 
vol.  I,  No.  1 ,  Foreign  Relations,  No.  4780.) 


APPENDIX 


One  of  the  most  effective  instruments  for  peace  is  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  as  it  has  been  and  is  being  gradu- 
ally developed  by  this  Nation  and  accepted  by  other 
nations.  No  other  policy  could  have  been  as  efficient 
in  promoting  peace  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  and 
in  giving  to  each  nation  thereon  the  chance  to  develop 
along  its  own  lines.  If  we  had  refused  to  apply  the 
Doctrine  to  changing  conditions,  it  would  now  be  com- 
pletely outworn,  would  not  meet  any  of  the  needs  of 
the  present  day,  and  indeed  would  probably  by  this 
time  have  sunk  into  complete  oblivion.  It  is  useful  at 
home,  and  is  meeting  recognition  abroad,  because  we 
have  adapted  our  application  of  it  to  meet  the  grow- 
ing and  changing  needs  of  the  hemisphere.  When  we 
announce  a  policy,  such  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  we 
thereby  commit  ourselves  to  the  consequences  of  the 
policy,  and  those  consequences  from  time  to  time  alter. 
It  is  out  of  the  question  to  claim  a  right  to  shirk 
the  responsibility  for  its  exercise.  Not  only  we,  but  all 
American  Republics  who  are  benefited  by  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Doctrine,  must  recognize  the  obligations 
each  nation  is  under  as  regards  foreign  peoples  no  less 
than  its  duty  to  insist  upon  its  own  rights. 

That  our  rights  and  interests  are  deeply  concerned 
in  the  maintenance  of  the  Doctrine  is  so  clear  as  hardly 
to  need  argument.  This  is  especially  true  in  view  of  the 
construction  of  the  Panama  Canal.  As  a  mere  matter  of 
self-defence  we  must  exercise  a  close  watch  over  the  ap- 
proaches to  this  canal  ;  and  this  means  that  we  must  be 
thoroughly  alive  to  our  interests  in  the  Caribbean  Sea. 

There  are  certain  essential  points  which  must  never 


APPENDIX 

be  forgotten  as  regards  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  In  the 
first  place  we  must  as  a  nation  make  it  evident  that 
we  do  not  intend  to  treat  it  in  any  shape  or  way  as  an 
excuse  for  aggrandizement  on  our  part  on  the  repub- 
lics to  the  south.  We  must  recognize  the  fact  that  in 
some  South  American  countries  there  has  been  much 
suspicion  lest  we  should  interpret  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
as  in  some  way  inimical  to  their  interests,  and  we  must 
try  to  convince  all  the  other  nations  of  the  continent 
once  and  for  all  that  no  just  and  orderly  government 
has  anything  to  fear  from  us.  There  are  certain  re- 
publics to  the  south  of  us  which  have  already  reached 
such  a  point  of  stability,  order,  and  prosperity,  that 
they  themselves,  though  as  yet  hardly  consciously,  are 
among  the  guarantors  of  this  Doctrine.  These  repub- 
lics we  now  meet  not  only  on  a  basis  of  entire  equality, 
but  in  a  spirit  of  frank  and  respectful  friendship  which 
we  hope  is  mutual.  If  all  the  republics  to  the  south 
of  us  will  only  grow  as  those  to  which  I  allude  have 
already  grown,  all  need  for  us  to  be  the  especial  cham- 
pions of  the  Doctrine  will  disappear,  for  no  stable  and 
growing  American  Republic  wishes  to  see  some  great 
non- American  military  power  acquire  territory  in  its 
neighborhood.  All  that  this  country  desires  is  that  the 
other  republics  on  the  continent  shall  be  happy  and 
prosperous ;  and  they  cannot  be  happy  and  prosperous 
unless  they  maintain  order  within  their  boundaries  and 
behave  with  a  just  regard  for  their  obligations  toward 
outsiders.  It  must  be  understood  that  under  no  cir- 
cumstances will  the  United  States  use  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine as  a  cloak  for  territorial  aggression.  We  desire 
peace  with  all  the  world,  but  perhaps  most  of  all  with 
the  other  peoples  of  the  American  Continent.  There 

C    126    ] 


APPENDIX 

are  of  course  limits  to  the  wrongs  which  any  self-re- 
specting nation  can  endure.  It  is  always  possible  that 
wrong  actions  toward  this  Nation,  or  toward  citizens 
of  this  Nation,  in  some  State  unable  to  keep  order 
among  its  own  people,  unable  to  secure  justice  from 
outsiders,  and  unwilling  to  do  justice  to  those  outsiders 
who  treat  it  well,  may  result  in  our  having  to  take  ac- 
tion to  protect  our  rights ;  but  such  action  will  not  be 
taken  with  a  view  to  territorial  aggression,  and  it  will 
be  taken  at  all  only  with  extreme  reluctance  and  when 
it  has  become  evident  that  every  other  resource  has 
been  exhausted. 

Moreover,  we  must  make  it  evident  that  we  do  not 
intend  to  permit  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  be  used  by 
any  nation  on  this  continent  as  a  shield  to  protect  it 
from  the  consequences  of  its  own  misdeeds  against  fo»«- 
eign  nations.  If  a  republic  to  the  south  of  us  commits  a 
tort  against  a  foreign  nation,  such  as  an  outrage  against 
a  citizen  of  that  nation,  then  the  Monroe  Doctrine  does 
not  force  us  to  interfere  to  prevent  punishment  of  the 
tort ;  save  to  see  that  the  punishment  does  not  assume 
the  form  of  territorial  occupation  in  any  shape.  The 
case  is  more  difficult  when  it  refers  to  a  contractual 
obligation.  Our  own  government  has  always  refused 
to  enforce  such  contractual  obligations  on  behalf  of  its 
citizens  by  an  appeal  to  arms.  It  is  much  to  be  wished 
that  all  foreign  governments  would  take  the  same  view. 
But  they  do  not ;  and  in  consequence  we  are  liable  at 
any  time  to  be  brought  face  to  face  with  disagreeable 
alternatives.  On  the  one  hand,  this  country  would  cer- 
tainly decline  to  go  to  war  to  prevent  a  foreign  govern- 
ment from  collecting  a  just  debt ;  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  very  inadvisable  to  permit  any  foreign  power  to  take 

C    127    ] 


APPENDIX 

possession ,  even  temporarily ,  of  the  custom-houses  of  an 
American  Republic  in  order  to  enforce  the  payment  of 
its  obligations ;  for  such  temporary  occupation  might 
turn  into  a  permanent  occupation.  The  only  escape 
from  these  alternatives  may  at  any  time  be  that  we  must 
ourselves  undertake  to  bring  about  some  arrangement 
by  which  so  much  as  possible  of  a  just  obligation  shall 
be  paid.  It  is  far  better  that  this  country  should  put 
through  such  an  arrangement,  rather  than  allow  any 
foreign  country  to  undertake  it.  To  do  so  insures  the 
defaulting  republic  from  having  to  pay  debts  of  an 
improper  character  under  duress,  while  it  also  insures 
honest  creditors  of  the  republic  from  being  passed  by  in 
the  interest  of  dishonest  or  grasping  creditors.  More- 
over, for  the  United  States  to  take  such  a  position  offers 
the  only  possible  way  of  insuring  us  against  a  clash  with 
some  foreign  power.  The  position  is  therefore  in  the 
interest  of  peace  as  well  as  in  the  interest  of  justice. 
It  is  of  benefit  to  our  people ;  it  is  of  benefit  to  foreign 
peoples;  and  most  of  all,  it  is  really  of  benefit  to  the 
people  of  the  country  concerned. 

This  brings  me  to  what  should  be  one  of  the  fun- 
damental objects  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  We  must 
ourselves  in  good  faith  try  to  help  upward  toward  peace 
and  order  those  of  our  sister  republics  which  need  such 
help.  Just  as  there  has  been  a  gradual  growth  of  the 
ethical  element  in  the  relations  of  one  individual  to 
another,  so  we  are,  even  though  slowly,  more  and 
more  coming  to  recognize  the  duty  of  bearing  one 
another's  burdens,  not  only  as  individuals,  but  also  as 
among  nations. 

Santo  Domingo,  in  her  turn,  has  now  made  an  ap- 
peal to  us  to  help  her,  and  not  only  every  principle  of 

C    128    ] 


APPENDIX 

wisdom  but  every  generous  instinct  within  us  bids  us 
respond  to  the  appeal.  It  is  not  of  the  slightest  conse- 
quence whether  we  grant  the  aid  needed  by  Santo  Do- 
mingo as  an  incident  to  the  wise  development  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  or  because  we  regard  the  case  of 
Santo  Domingo  as  standing  wholly  by  itself,  and  to  be 
treated  as  such,  and  not  on  general  principles  or  with 
any  reference  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  The  important 
point  is  to  give  the  needed  aid,  and  the  case  is  certainly 
sufficiently  peculiar  to  deserve  to  be  judged  purely  on 
its  own  merits.  (59th  Congress,  1st  session,  1905,  House 
Documents,  Foreign  Relations,  No.  4941.) 


The  Second  International  Conference  of  American  Re- 
publics, held  in  Mexico  in  the  years  1901  -02  ,  provided 
for  the  holding  of  the  third  conference  within  five  years, 
and  committed  the  fixing  of  the  time  and  place  and 
the  arrangements  for  the  conference  to  the  govern- 
ing board  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Republics,  com- 
posed of  the  representatives  of  all  the  American  na- 
tions in  Washington.  That  board  discharged  the  duty 
imposed  upon  it  with  marked  fidelity  and  painstaking 
care,  and  upon  the  courteous  invitation  of  the  United 
States  of  Brazil,  the  conference  was  held  at  Rio  de  Ja- 
neiro, continuing  from  the  23d  of  July  to  the  29th  of 
August  last.  Many  subjects  of  common  interest  to  all 
the  American  nations  were  discussed  by  the  confer- 
ence, and  the  conclusions  reached,  embodied  in  a  series 
of  resolutions  and  proposed  conventions,  will  be  laid 
before  you  upon  the  coming  in  of  the  final  report  of 
the  American  delegates.  They  contain  many  matters 
of  importance  relating  to  the  extension  of  trade,  the 

C    129    H 


APPENDIX 

increase  of  communication,  the  smoothing  away  of 
barriers  to  free  intercourse,  and  the  promotion  of  a 
better  knowledge  and  good  understanding  between 
the  different  countries  represented.  The  meetings  of 
the  conference  were  harmonious  and  the  conclusions 
were  reached  with  substantial  unanimity.  It  is  interest- 
ing to  observe  that  in  the  successive  conferences  which 
have  been  held  the  representatives  of  the  different 
American  nations  have  been  learning  to  work  together 
effectively,  for,  while  the  First  Conference  in  Wash- 
ington in  1889,  and  the  Second  Conference  in  Mexico 
in  1901-02,  occupied  many  months,  with  much  time 
wasted  in  an  unregulated  and  fruitless  discussion,  the 
Third  Conference  at  Rio  exhibited  much  of  the  facil- 
ity in  the  practical  dispatch  of  business  which  charac- 
terizes permanent  deliberative  bodies,  and  completed 
its  labors  within  the  period  of  six  weeks  originally 
allotted  for  its  sessions. 

Quite  apart  from  •  the  specific  value  of  the  conclu- 
sions reached  by  the  conference,  the  example  of  the 
representatives  of  all  the  American  nations  engaging 
in  harmonious  and  kindly  consideration  and  discussion 
of  subjects  of  common  interest  is  itself  of  great  and 
substantial  value  for  the  promotion  of  reasonable  and 
considerate  treatment  of  all  international  questions. 
The  thanks  of  this  country  are  due  to  the  Government 
of  Brazil  and  to  the  people  of  Rio  de  Janeiro  for  the 
generous  hospitality  with  which  our  delegates,  in  com- 
mon with  the  others,  were  received,  entertained,  and 
facilitated  in  their  work. 

Incidentally  to  the  meeting  of  the  conference,  the 
Secretary  of  State  visited  the  city  of  Rio  de  Janeiro, 
and  was  cordially  received  by  the  conference,  of  which 

[  130  ] 


APPENDIX 

he  was  made  an  honorary  president.  The  announce- 
ment of  his  intention  to  make  this  visit  was  followed 
by  most  courteous  and  urgent  invitations  from  nearly 
all  the  countries  of  South  America  to  visit  them  as 
the  guest  of  their  Governments.  It  was  deemed  that 
by  the  acceptance  of  these  invitations  we  might  appro- 
priately express  the  real  respect  and  friendship  in  which 
we  hold  our  sister  Republics  of  the  southern  continent, 
and  the  Secretary,  accordingly,  visited  Brazil,  Uru- 
guay, Argentina,  Chile,  Peru,  Panama,  and  Colom- 
bia. He  refrained  from  visiting  Paraguay,  Bolivia,  and 
Ecuador  only  because  the  distance  of  their  capitals 
from  the  seaboard  made  it  impracticable  with  the  time 
at  his  disposal.  He  carried  with  him  a  message  of  peace 
and  friendship,  and  of  strong  desire  for  good  under- 
standing and  mutual  helpfulness ;  and  he  was  every- 
where received  in  the  spirit  of  his  message.  The  mem- 
bers of  government,  the  press,  the  learned  professions, 
the  men  of  business,  and  the  great  masses  of  the  people 
united  everywhere  in  emphatic  response  to  his  friendly 
expressions  and  in  doing  honor  to  the  country  and 
cause  which  he  represented. 

In  many  parts  of  South  America  there  has  been 
much  misunderstanding  of  the  attitude  and  purposes 
of  the  United  States  toward  the  other  American  Re- 
publics. An  idea  had  become  prevalent  that  our  asser- 
tion of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  implied,  or  carried  with 
it,  an  assumption  of  superiority,  and  of  a  right  to  ex- 
ercise some  kind  of  protectorate  over  the  countries  to 
whose  territory  that  doctrine  applies.  Nothing  could 
be  farther  from  the  truth.  Yet  that  impression  con- 
tinued to  be  a  serious  barrier  to  good  understanding, 
to  friendly  intercourse,  to  the  introduction  of  Amer- 

c 


APPENDIX 

ican  capital  and  the  extension  of  American  trade.  The 
impression  was  so  widespread  that  apparently  it  could 
not  be  reached  by  any  ordinary  means. 

It  was  part  of  Secretary  Root's  mission  to  dispel  this 
unfounded  impression,  and  there  is  just  cause  to  be- 
lieve that  he  has  succeeded.  In  an  address  to  the  third 
conference  at  Rio  on  the  3 1  st  of  July  —  an  address 
of  such  note  that  I  send  it  in,  together  with  this  mes- 
sage —  he  said : 

"  We  wish  for  no  victories  but  those  of  peace ;  for  no 
territory  except  our  own;  for  no  sovereignty  except 
the  sovereignty  over  ourselves.  We  deem  the  inde- 
pendence and  equal  rights  of  the  smallest  and  weakest 
member  of  the  family  of  nations  entitled  to  as  much 
respect  as  those  of  the  greatest  empire,  and  we  deem 
the  observance  of  that  respect  the  chief  guaranty  of  the 
weak  against  the  oppression  of  the  strong.  We  neither 
claim  nor  desire  any  rights  or  privileges  or  powers 
that  we  do  not  freely  concede  to  every  American  Re- 
public. We  wish  to  increase  our  prosperity,  to  extend 
our  trade,  to  grow  in  wealth,  in  wisdom,  and  in  spirit, 
but  our  conception  of  the  true  way  to  accomplish  this 
is  not  to  pull  down  others  and  profit  by  their  ruin, 
but  to  help  all  friends  to  a  common  prosperity  and  a 
common  growth,  that  we  may  all  become  greater  and 
stronger  together. 

"Within  a  few  months  for  the  first  time  the  rec- 
ognized possessors  of  every  foot  of  soil  upon  the  Amer- 
ican continents  can  be  and  I  hope  will  be  represented 
with  the  acknowledged  rights  of  equal  sovereign  states 
in  the  great  World  Congress  at  the  Hague.  This  will 
be  the  world's  formal  and  final  acceptance  of  the  dec- 
laration that  no  part  of  the  American  continents  is  to 

C  132 


APPENDIX 

be  deemed  subject  to  colonization.  Let  us  pledge  our- 
selves to  aid  each  other  in  the  full  performance  of  the 
duty  to  humanity  which  that  accepted  declaration  im- 
plies, so  that  in  time  the  weakest  and  most  unfortu- 
nate of  our  Republics  may  come  to  march  with  equal 
step  by  the  side  of  the  stronger  and  more  fortunate. 
Let  us  help  each  other  to  show  that  for  all  the  races 
of  men  the  liberty  for  which  we  have  fought  and  la- 
bored is  the  twin  sister  of  justice  and  peace.  Let  us 
unite  in  creating  and  maintaining  and  making  effective 
an  all- American  public  opinion,  whose  power  shall  in- 
fluence international  conduct  and  prevent  international 
wrong,  and  narrow  the  causes  of  war,  and  forever  pre- 
serve our  free  lands  from  the  burden  of  such  arma- 
ments as  are  massed  behind  the  frontiers  of  Europe, 
and  bring  us  ever  nearer  to  the  perfection  of  ordered 
liberty.  So  shall  come  security  and  prosperity,  produc- 
tion and  trade,  wealth,  learning,  the  arts,  and  happi- 
ness for  us  all." 

These  words  appear  to  have  been  received  with  ac- 
claim in  every  part  of  South  America.  They  have  my 
hearty  approval,  as  I  am  sure  they  will  have  yours, 
and  I  cannot  be  wrong  in  the  conviction  that  they  cor- 
rectly represent  the  sentiments  of  the  whole  American 
people.  I  cannot  better  characterize  the  true  attitude 
of  the  United  States  in  its  assertion  of  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine than  in  the  words  of  the  distinguished  former  min- 
ister of  foreign  affairs  of  Argentina,  Doctor  Drago,  in 
his  speech  welcoming  Mr.  Root  to  Buenos  Ayres.  He 
spoke  of — 

"The  traditional  policy  of  the  United  States 
(which)  without  accentuating  superiority  or  seeking 
preponderance,  condemned  the  oppression  of  the  na- 

C   133  ] 


APPENDIX 

tions  of  this  part  of  the  world  and  the  control  of  their 
destinies  by  the  great  Powers  of  Europe." 

It  is  gratifying  to  know  that  in  the  great  city  of 
Buenos  Ayres,  upon  the  arches  which  spanned  the 
streets,  entwined  with  Argentine  and  American  flags 
for  the  reception  of  our  representative,  there  were  em- 
blazoned not  only  the  names  of  Washington  and  Jef- 
ferson and  Marshall,  but  also,  in  appreciative  recogni- 
tion of  their  services  to  the  cause  of  South  American 
independence,  the  names  of  James  Monroe,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Henry  Clay,  and  Richard  Rush.  We 
take  especial  pleasure  in  the  graceful  courtesy  of  the 
Government  of  Brazil,  which  has  given  to  the  beau- 
tiful and  stately  building  first  used  for  the  meeting  of 
the  conference  the  name  of  "  Palacio  Monroe."  Our 
grateful  acknowledgments  are  due  to  the  Governments 
and  the  people  of  all  the  countries  visited  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  the  courtesy,  the  friendship,  and 
the  honor  shown  to  our  country  in  their  generous  hos- 
pitality to  him.  (59th  Congress,  2d  session,  1906, 
House  Documents,  vol.  1 ,  pt.  1 ,  No.  1 ,  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, No.  5104.) 


Ill 
THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AT  ITS  BEST 

BEING  THE  SPEECH  OF  SECRETARY  ROOT 
AT  RIO  DE  JANEIRO,  JULY  31,  1906 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Third  Confer- 
ence of  American  Republics  :  I  beg  you  to  believe  that 
I  highly  appreciate  and  thank  you  for  the  honor  you 
do  me. 

C 


APPENDIX 

I  bring  from  my  country  a  special  greeting  to  her 
elder  sisters  in  the  civilization  of  America. 

Unlike  as  we  are  in  many  respects,  we  are  alike  in 
this,  that  we  are  all  engaged  under  new  conditions  and 
free  from  the  traditional  forms  and  limitations  of  the 
Old  World  in  working  out  the  same  problem  of  pop- 
ular self-government. 

It  is  a  difficult  and  laborious  task  for  each  of  us. 
Not  in  one  generation  nor  in  one  century  can  the  ef- 
fective control  of  a  superior  sovereign,  so  long  deemed 
necessary  to  government,  be  rejected  and  effective  self- 
control  by  the  governed  be  perfected  in  its  place.  The 
first  fruits  of  democracy  are  many  of  them  crude  and 
unlovely ;  its  mistakes  are  many,  its  partial  failures 
many,  its  sins  not  few.  Capacity  for  self-government 
does  not  come  to  man  by  nature.  It  is  an  art  to  be 
learned,  and  it  is  also  an  expression  of  character  to 
be  developed  among  all  the  thousands  of  men  who 
exercise  popular  sovereignty. 

To  reach  the  goal  towards  which  we  are  pressing 
forward,  the  governing  multitude  must  first  acquire 
knowledge  that  comes  from  universal  education,  wis- 
dom that  follows  practical  experience,  personal  inde- 
pendence and  self-respect  befitting  men  who  acknow- 
ledge no  superior,  self-control  to  replace  that  external 
control  which  a  democracy  rejects,  respect  for  law, 
obedience  to  the  lawful  expressions  of  the  public  will, 
consideration  for  the  opinions  and  interests  of  others 
equally  entitled  to  a  voice  in  the  state,  loyalty  to  that 
abstract  conception — one's  country — as  inspiring  as 
that  loyalty  to  personal  sovereigns  which  has  so  illu- 
mined the  pages  of  history,  subordination  of  personal 
interests  to  the  public  good,  love  of  justice  and  mercy, 

C   135  D 


APPENDIX 

of  liberty  and  order.  All  these  we  must  seek  by  slow 
and  patient  effort ;  and  of  how  many  shortcomings  in 
his  own  land  and  among  his  own  people  each  one  of  us 
is  conscious. 

Yet  no  student  of  our  times  can  fail  to  see  that  not 
America  alone,  but  the  whole  civilized  world  is  swing- 
ing away  from  its  old  governmental  moorings  and  in- 
trusting the  fate  of  its  civilization  to  the  capacity  of  the 
popular  mass  to  govern.  By  this  pathway  mankind  is  to 
travel,  whithersoever  it  leads.  Upon  the  success  of  this 
our  great  undertaking  the  hope  of  humanity  depends. 

Nor  can  we  fail  to  see  that  the  world  makes  substan- 
tial progress  towards  more  perfect  popular  self-govern- 
ment. 

I  believe  it  to  be  true  that,  viewed  against  the  back- 
ground of  conditions  a  century,  a  generation,  a  decade 
ago,  government  in  my  own  country  has  advanced,  in 
the  intelligent  participation  of  the  great  mass  of  the 
people,  in  the  fidelity  and  honesty  with  which  they  are 
represented,  in  respect  for  law,  in  obedience  to  the  dic- 
tates of  a  sound  morality,  and  in  effectiveness  and  purity 
of  administration. 

Nowhere  in  the  world  has  this  progress  been  more 
marked  than  in  Latin  America.  Out  of  the  wrack  of 
Indian  fighting  and  race  conflicts  and  civil  wars,  strong 
and  stable  governments  have  arisen.  Peaceful  succession 
in  accord  with  the  people's  will  has  replaced  the  forcible 
seizure  of  power  permitted  by  the  people's  indifference. 
Loyalty  to  country,  its  peace,  its  dignity,  its  honor, 
has  risen  above  partisanship  for  individual  leaders.  The 
rule  of  law  supersedes  the  rule  of  man.  Property  is  pro- 
tected and  the  fruits  of  enterprise  are  secure.  Individ- 
ual liberty  is  respected.  Continuous  public  policies  are 

C  136  3 


APPENDIX 

followed ;  national  faith  is  held  sacred.  Progress  has 
not  been  equal  everywhere,  but  there  has  been  progress 
everywhere.  The  movement  in  the  right  direction  is 
general.  The  right  tendency  is  not  exceptional;  it  is 
continental.  The  present  affords  just  cause  for  satisfac- 
tion; the  future  is  bright  with  hope. 

It  is  not  by  national  isolation  that  these  results  have 
been  accomplished,  or  that  this  progress  can  be  con- 
tinued. No  nation  can  live  unto  itself  alone  and  con- 
tinue to  live.  Each  nation's  growth  is  a  part  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  race.  There  may  be  leaders  and  there 
may  be  laggards,  but  no  nation  can  long  continue  very 
far  in  advance  of  the  general  progress  of  mankind,  and 
no  nation  that  is  not  doomed  to  extinction  can  remain 
very  far  behind.  It  is  with  nations  as  it  is  with  individual 
men :  intercourse,  association,  correction  of  egotism  by 
the  influence  of  other's  judgment,  broadening  of  views 
by  the  experience  and  thought  of  equals,  acceptance  of 
the  moral  standards  of  a  community  the  desire  for  whose 
good  opinion  lends  a  sanction  to  the  rules  of  right  con- 
duct— these  are  theconditions  of  growth  in  civilization. 
A  people  whose  minds  are  not  open  to  the  lessons  of  the 
world's  progress,  whose  spirits  are  not  stirred  by  the  as- 
pirations and  the  achievements  of  humanity  struggling 
the  world  over  for  liberty  and  justice,  must  be  left  be- 
hind by  civilization  in  its  steady  and  beneficent  advance. 

To  promote  this  mutual  interchange  and  assistance 
between  the  American  Republics,  engaged  in  the  same 
great  task,  inspired  by  the  same  purpose,  and  profess- 
ing the  same  principles,  I  understand  to  be  the  function 
of  the  American  Conference  now  in  session.  There  is 
not  one  of  all  our  countries  that  cannot  benefit  the  oth- 
ers ;  there  is  not  one  that  cannot  receive  benefit  from 

C   '37] 


APPENDIX 

the  others ;  there  is  not  one  that  will  not  gain  by  the 
prosperity,  the  peace,  the  happiness  of  all. 

According  to  your  programme  no  great  and  im- 
pressive single  thing  is  to  be  done  by  you  ;  no  political 
questions  are  to  be  discussed  ;  no  controversies  are  to  be 
settled ;  no  judgment  is  to  be  passed  upon  the  conduct 
of  any  state;  but  many  subjects  are  to  be  considered 
which  afford  the  possibility  of  removing  barriers  to 
intercourse;  of  ascertaining  for  the  common  benefit 
what  advances  have  been  made  by  each  nation  in 
knowledge,  in  experience,  in  enterprise,  in  the  solution 
of  difficult  questions  of  government,  and  in  ethical 
standards;  of  perfecting  our  knowledge  of  each  other; 
and  of  doing  away  with  the  misconceptions,  the  mis- 
understandings, and  the  resultant  prejudices  that  are 
such  fruitful  sources  of  controversy. 

And  there  are  some  subjects  in  the  programme  which 
invite  discussion  that  may  lead  the  American  Repub- 
lics towards  an  agreement  upon  principles,  the  gen- 
eral practical  application  of  which  can  come  only  in  the 
future  through  long  and  patient  effort.  Some  advance 
at  least  may  be  made  here  towards  the  complete  rule 
of  justice  and  peace  among  nations  in  lieu  of  force 
and  war. 

The  association  of  so  many  eminent  men  from  all 
the  Republics,  leaders  of  opinion  in  their  own  homes ; 
the  friendships  that  will  arise  among  you ;  the  habit  of 
temperate  and  kindly  discussion  of  matters  of  common 
interest ;  the  ascertainment  of  common  sympathies  and 
aims ;  the  dissipation  of  misunderstandings ;  the  exhi- 
bition to  all  the  American  peoples  of  this  peaceful  and 
considerate  method  of  conferring  upon  international 
questions —  this  alone,  quite  irrespective  of  the  resolu- 

C 


APPENDIX 

tions  you  may  adopt  and  the  conventions  you  may 
sign,  will  mark  a  substantial  advance  in  the  direction 
of  international  good  understanding. 

These  beneficent  results  the  Government  and  the 
people  of  the  United  States  of  America  greatly  desire. 

We  wish  for  no  victories  but  those  of  peace ;  for  no 
territory  except  our  own ;  for  no  sovereignty  except 
the  sovereignty  over  ourselves.  We  deem  the  inde- 
pendence and  equal  rights  of  the  smallest  and  weakest 
member  of  the  family  of  nations  entitled  to  as  much 
respect  as  those  of  the  greatest  empire,  and  we  deem 
the  observance  of  that  respect  the  chief  guaranty  of  the 
weak  against  the  oppression  of  the  strong.  We  neither 
claim  nor  desire  any  rights,  or  privileges,  or  powers 
that  we  do  not  freely  concede  to  every  American  Re- 
public. We  wish  to  increase  our  prosperity,  to  expand 
our  trade,  to  grow  in  wealth,  in  wisdom,  and  in  spirit, 
but  our  conception  of  the  true  way  to  accomplish  this 
is  not  to  pull  down  others  and  profit  by  their  ruin, 
but  to  help  all  friends  to  a  common  prosperity  and  a 
common  growth,  that  we  may  all  become  greater  and 
stronger  together. 

Within  a  few  months,  for  the  first  time,  the  rec- 
ognized possessors  of  every  foot  of  soil  upon  the  Amer- 
ican continents  can  be  and  I  hope  will  be  represented 
with  the  acknowledged  rights  of  equal  sovereign  states 
in  the  great  World  Congress  at  the  Hague.  This  will 
be  the  world's  formal  and  final  acceptance  of  the  dec- 
laration that  no  part  of  the  American  continents  is  to 
be  deemed  subject  to  colonization.  Let  us  pledge  our- 
selves to  aid  each  other  in  the  full  performance  of  the 
duty  to  humanity  which  that  accepted  declaration  im- 
plies ;  so  that  in  time  the  weakest  and  most  unfortu- 

C    139   ] 


APPENDIX 

nate  of  our  Republics  may  come  to  march  with  equal 
step  by  the  side  of  the  stronger  and  more  fortunate. 
Let  us  help  each  other  to  show  that  for  all  the  races 
of  men  the  liberty  for  which  we  have  fought  and  la- 
bored is  the  twin  sister  of  justice  and  peace.  Let  us 
unite  in  creating  and  maintaining  and  making  effective 
an  all- American  public  opinion,  whose  power  shall 
influence  international  conduct  and  prevent  interna- 
tional wrong,  and  narrow  the  causes  of  war,  and  forever 
preserve  our  free  lands  from  the  burden  of  such  arma- 
ments as  are  massed  behind  the  frontiers  of  Europe, 
and  bring  us  ever  nearer  to  the  perfection  of  ordered 
liberty.  So  shall  come  security  and  prosperity,  produc- 
tion and  trade,  wealth,  learning,  the  arts,  and  happi- 
ness for  us  all. 

Not  in  a  single  conference,  nor  by  a  single  effort, 
can  very  much  be  done.  You  labor  more  for  the  future 
than  for  the  present ;  but  if  the  right  impulse  be  given, 
if  the  right  tendency  be  established,  the  work  you  do 
here  will  go  on  among  all  the  millions  of  people  in 
the  American  continents  long  after  your  final  adjourn- 
ment, long  after  your  lives,  with  incalculable  benefit 
to  all  our  beloved  countries,  which  may  it  please  God 
to  continue  free  and  independent  and  happy  for  ages 
to  come.  (Speeches  incident  to  the  Visit  of  Secretary 
Root  to  South  America,  Washington,  190 6,  jap.  7- 13.) 


C 


APPENDIX 

IV 
THE  LAST  PHASE 

THE  LODGE  RESOLUTION 

Resolved  that  when  any  harbor  or  other  place  in  the 
American  continents  is  so  situated  that  the  occupation 
thereof  for  naval  or  military  purposes  might  threaten 
the  communications  or  the  safety  of  the  United  States, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  could  not  see,  with- 
out grave  concern,  the  possession  of  such  harbor  or  other 
place  by  any  corporation  or  association  which  has  such 
a  relation  to  another  Government,  not  American,  as  to 
give  that  Government  practical  power  of  control  for 
national  purposes. 

Mr.  President,  .  .  .  this  resolution  rests  on  a  gen- 
erally accepted  principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  older 
than  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  It  rests  on  the  principle  that 
every  nation  has  a  right  to  protect  its  own  safety,  and 
that  if  it  feels  that  the  possession  by  a  foreign  power, 
for  military  or  naval  purposes,  of  any  given  harbor  or 
place  is  prejudicial  to  its  safety,  it  is  its  duty  as  well 
as  its  right  to  interfere. 

I  will  instance  as  an  example  of  what  I  mean  the 
protest  that  was  made  successfully  against  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  port  of  Agadir  in  Morocco  by  Germany. 
England  objected  on  the  ground  that  it  threatened  her 
communication  through  the  Mediterranean.  That  view 
was  shared  largely  by  the  European  powers,  and  the 
occupation  of  that  port  was  prevented  in  that  way. That 
is  the  principle  upon  which  the  resolution  rests. 

It  has  been  made  necessary  by  a  change  of  modern 
conditions,  under  which,  while  a  government  takes  no 

L 


APPENDIX 

action  itself,  the  possession  of  an  important  place  of 
the  character  I  have  described  may  be  taken  by  a  cor- 
poration or  association  which  would  be  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  foreign  government. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  was,  of  course,  an  extension 
in  our  own  interests  of  this  underlying  principle — the 
right  of  every  nation  to  provide  for  its  own  safety.  The 
Monroe  Doctrine,  as  we  all  know,  was  applied,  so  far 
as  taking  possession  of  territory  was  concerned,  to  its 
being  open  to  further  colonization,  and  naturally  did 
not  touch  upon  the  precise  point  involved  here.  But 
without  any  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  possession  of  a  har- 
bor such  as  that  of  Magdalena  Bay,  which  has  led  to 
this  resolution,  would  render  it  necessary,  I  think,  to 
make  some  declaration  covering  a  case  where  a  cor- 
poration or  association  was  involved. 

In  this  particular  case  it  became  apparent  from  the 
inquiries  made  by  the  committee  and  by  the  admin- 
istration that  no  government  was  concerned  in  tak- 
ing possession  of  Magdalena  Bay ;  but  it  also  became 
apparent  that  those  persons  who  held  control  of  the 
Mexican  concession,  which  included  the  land  about 
Magdalena  Bay,  were  engaged  in  negotiations  which 
have  not  yet  been  completed  certainly  but  which  have 
only  been  tentative,  looking  to  the  sale  of  that  bay  and 
the  land  about  it  to  a  corporation  either  created  or 
authorized  by  a  foreign  government,  or  in  which  the 
stock  was  largely  held  or  controlled  by  foreigners. 

The  passage  of  this  resolution  has  seemed  to  the 
committee,  without  division,  I  think,  to  be  in  the  in- 
terest of  peace.  It  is  always  desirable  to  make  the  posi- 
tion of  a  country  in  regard  to  a  question  of  this  kind 
known  beforehand,  and  not  to  allow  a  situation  to  arise 

C    142    3 


APPENDIX 

in  which  it  might  be  necessary  to  urge  a  friendly  power 
to  withdraw  when  that  withdrawal  could  not  be  made, 
perhaps,  without  some  humiliation. 

The  Resolution  is  merely  a  statement  of  policy  al- 
lied to  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  of  course,  but  not  neces- 
sarily dependent  upon  it,  or  growing  out  of  it.  When 
the  message  came  in  I  made  a  statement  as  to  the  con- 
ditions at  Magdalena  Bay  which  had  led  to  the  reso- 
lution of  inquiry  and  which  has  now  led  to  the  sub- 
sequent action  of  the  committee.  It  seemed  to  the  com- 
mittee that  it  was  very  wise  to  make  this  statement  of 
policy  at  this  time  when  it  can  give  offence  to  no  one 
and  makes  the  position  of  the  United  States  clear. 

Of  course  I  need  not  say  to  the  Senate  that  the  open- 
ing of  the  Panama  canal  gives  to  the  question  of  Mag- 
dalena Bay  and  to  that  of  the  Galapagos  Islands,  which 
have  been  once  or  twice  before  considered,  an  impor- 
tance such  as  they  have  never  possessed,  and  I  think 
it  enormously  desirable  in  every  interest  that  this  re- 
solution should  receive  the  assent  of  the  Senate.  (Reso- 
lution introduced  by  Senator  Lodge ,  of  Massachusetts, 
in  the  Senate  and  passed,  August  2 ,  1912,  together  with 
his  speech  in  defence  of  it.  Congressional  Record,  vol. 
48,  part  10,  page  10045.) 

[The  Resolution  was  discussed  in  secret  session  for 
three  hours  and  then  passed,  51-4,  Senator  Cummins 
being  the  leading  opponent  on  the  ground  that  corpo- 
rations should  not  be  included  in  this.] 


C    14-3 


INDEX 


INDEX 

"  A  B  C"  powers,  77,  78;  90;  advisability  of  our  allying 
with,  against  Asiatics,  96;  109, 110,  111. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  4. 

Alliance,  Latin-American, — defensive,  74;  77,  78,  79; 
U.S.  with  "A  BC"  powers,  109, 110,  111. 

Alsop  claim,  35;  78;  86. 

Amazon,  U.  S.  expedition,  33. 

Ambassadors,  exchange  with  Argentina  and  Chile,  110. 

Antilles,  74. 

Arbitration,  no  right  to  compel,  17. 

Argentina,  cartoons,  31 ;  68 ;  wealth  and  importance,  55, 
56,  57, 58,  59,  60,  61,  62 ;  63 ;  attitude  toward  Mon- 
roe Doctrine,  65,  67,  68,  76;  navy,  78,  90;  produc- 
tions and  exports,  58,  100;  immigration,  100;  am- 
bassadors, exchange  of,  110;  Japanese  in,  94,  95. 

Asiatic  exclusion  policy,  U.  S.,  95. 

Asiatics  in  South  America,  90,  91,  92,  93,  94,  95,  96. 

BAHIA,  105, 106. 
" Baltimore"  episode,  27. 

Banks,  German,  in  South  America,  99. 

Barrundia  affair,  25,  26. 

Benham,  Admiral,  29. 
"Big  Stick, "71. 

Blaine,  Secretary  James  G.,  18. 

Blanco,  General  Guzman,  21. 

Bland,  Mr.,  91. 

Bluefields  incident,  30. 

Bolivia,  Indian  population,  91 ;  products,  100. 

Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce,  57. 

Boundary  dispute,  Venezuela  —  British  Guiana,  11, 12. 

Brazil,  French  literature  in,  20;  U.  S.  warships  sent, 
1893,28, 29, 30 ;  bad  feeling  engendered,  1895, 29, 30; 
U.S.  Amazon  expedition,  33 ;  wealth  ami  importance, 
55,  56,  58,  59,  60,  61,  62,  99  ;  attitude  to  U.  S.,  69, 

[    147   ] 


INDEX 

70;  navy,  79,  90;  Asiatics  in,  93,  94;  Germans  in, 

98,  100.' 

British  Guiana,  boundary  dispute,  11,  12. 
Bryce,  James,  20,  21,  82,  107,  108. 
Buenos  Aires,  taxi-cabs  in,  58;  cartoons,  68. 

CALDERON,  Francisco  Garcia,  23,  75. 

California,  Japanese  in,  63, 93 ;  annexation  of,  41, 79, 107. 

Canada,  73. 

Canal  Zone,  United  States  takes  control,  34. 

Cantonese  in  South  America,  92. 

Capital,  British,  in  South  America,  61. 

Cartoons,  J^atin- American,  31 ;  Argentine,  31,  68;  Chil- 
ean, 68,  69. 

Central  America,  warships  sent  to,  1899,  33;  our  new 
attitude  in,  38 ;  U.  S.  troops  twice  landed  recently,  38 ; 
74; 111. 

Chile,  war  with  Spain,  1866-67,  8,  9;  "Itata"  affair, 
1891,  26,  27,  28;  Alsop  claim,  35,  86 ;  wealth  and  im- 
portance, 55,  56,  60,  61,  100;  navy,  79,  90;  J^atin- 
American  Congress,  1908,  87,  89 ;  Asiatics  in,  92 ;  am- 
bassadors, exchange  with,  110. 

China,  58 ;  68;  treaty  rights,  80 ;  91. 

Chinese  in  Peru,  91 ;  in  Mexico,  93. 

Cleveland,  President  Grover,  11, 13, 14, 15. 

Colombia,  U.  S.  demand  for  damages,  1899,  33;  U.  S. 
property  seized,  1902,  33;  territory  taken  from,  79  ; 
Indian  population,  91;  Asiatics  in,  92. 

Color  line  in  United  States  and  Latin  America,  23,  24. 

Commerce,  see  Tirade. 

Communication  and  travel,  difficulties  in  South  America 
to-day,  7. 

Congress  of  American  powers,  110. 

Continent,  synonymous  with  western  hemisphere,  10. 

Coolidge,  A.  C.,  7  (note). 

Cuba,  Spanish  American  War,  30 ;  recent  intervention 
in,  39,  79,  86;  41;  69. 

Custom  houses,  Latin- American,  51. 

C  148  3 


INDEX 

DA  GAMA,  Admiral,  29. 

Debts,  Latin-American,  enforced  payment,  35,  36,  37, 

38,  43,  44,  45. 
" Detroit, "U.  S.  S.,  29. 
Dominican  Republic,  debt,  36,  37. 

ECUADOR,  trouble  with,  1899, 33 ;  present  financial  status, 
45,  46;  69;  92;  refuses  U.S.  assistance  in  sanitation, 
82,  83 ;  Indian  population,  91. 

GERMANS  in  South  America,  74,  98,  99,  100. 

Gil,  Professor,  67. 

Gorgas,  Colonel,  82. 

Grant,  U.  S. ,  General,  message  on  Santo  Domingo,  9,10. 

Great  Britain,  Venezuela  dispute,  1 1 ;  danger  of  war  with, 

11 ;  capital  invested  in  South  America,  61. 
Guam,  32. 

Guantanamo,  32,  40,  79. 
Guatemala,  Barrundia  affair,  25,  26;  present  financial 

status,  45,  46. 
Guayaquil,  sanitation  of,  82,  83. 

HAGUE,  The,  84. 
' '  Hegemony ' '  of  North  America,  71 . 

Holy  Alliance,  6. 

Honduras,  U.  S.  warships  sent,  34,  35 ;  comments  of  min- 
ister on  our  new  attitude,  38;  41 ;  present  financial 
status,  45,  46. 

Hfdlicka,  Ales,  91. 

IMMIGRATION,  Asiatic,  95. 

Imperialism,  71,  72,  73,  74,  83,  86. 

Independence,  right  of,  53. 

International  law,  difference  between  law  and  fiolicy,  13, 

14, 15,  16,  17;  overstepped,  26,  27;  intervention  ami, 

54. 

International  Scientific  Congresses,  88. 
International  Union  of  American  Republics,  18. 

C    '49  ] 


INDEX 

Intervention,  European,  forbidden  by  President  Polk,  7; 
menace  of,  41,  42,  78 ;  armed,  to  collect  debts,  43,  44 ; 
when  legitimate,  54;  cases  objectionable  to  South 
America,  79 ;  necessity  of  checking,  79  ;  and  interfer- 
ence, 82. 

Investments,  British,  in  South  America,  61. 
(Itata"  affair,  26,  27. 

JAPAN,  58. 

Japanese,  Magdalena  Bay,  40,  92,  93;  63;  74;  in  South 
America,  90;  in  Brazil,  93,  94;  labor,  95;  steamship 
line,  96;  in  Peru,  96. 

Jefferson,  President  Thomas,  71 . 

Jingoism,  Venezuela  controversy,  1895,  11,  12,  13;  in 
Chile  affair,  1891,  27;  67. 

KNOX,  Secretary  Philander  C.,  86,  87. 

LA  GUAIRA,  33. 

La  Plata,  University  of,  67. 

Labor,  Japanese,  95. 

Latin  America,  not  sympathetic  through  proximity,  race, 
or  religion,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24;  financial  status, 
43,  44,  45,  46,  47;  naval  power,  78,  79;  influenced 
against  U.S.,  89,  108;  European  criticism,  72,  73,  74. 

Latin-American  alliance  against  U.  S.  tutelage,  66,  67, 
72,  73,  74,  77,  78. 

Latin-American  Scientific  Congress,  87,  88,  89. 

Latin  Crusade,  74,  77. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  39. 

Lynchings  in  U.  S.,  77. 

MAGDALENA  Bay,  39,  40,  92,  93. 

Mail  steamers  to  Argentina,  62. 

Marchi,  Baron  de,  95. 

Maximilian,  8. 

Mexican  War,  1846,  107. 

Mexico,  Napoleon  III  and  Maximilian,  8;  25;  68;  69; 

C  150  ] 


INDEX 

debt,  46,  47;  Texas  and  California,  79;  U.  S.  army 
mobilized  on  frontier,  79;  Chinese  in,  93. 

Monroe,  President  James,  4,  10. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  purpose  and  scope  of  present  treatise, 
preface,  vii;  text  of  original  Doctrine,  3,  appendix; 
Austrian  comment,  1824,  5;  early  history,  1823-66, 
4,  5,  8;  significance  early  recognized  in  Europe,  5; 
when  useful  to  Latin  America,  6,  7,  107;  Folk's  in- 
terpretation, no  European  intervention  allowed,  7; 
Seward's  interpretation,  (l)  Maximilian,  8,  (2)Chile, 
War  of  1866,  8,  9 ;  Grant's  interpretation,  Santo  Do- 
mingo, 1870,  9,  10;  aggressive  attitude  first  assumed, 
10 ;  Olney  's  invocation,  Venezuela,  1 1 ;  not  international 
law,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17;  compulsory  arbitration,  17; 
popularity  in  U.  S.  evidenced,  17;  not  concerned  in 
'Venezuela  controversy"?  17;  founded  on  false  pre- 
mises, 18, 19,  20,  21,  22,  23 ;  aggressive  policy  of  1892 
dangerous,  27,  28 ;  Olney's  new  doctrine,  30 ;  compar- 
ison of  original  and  that  of  1898,  32,  33 ;  fruits  of  new 
doctrine,  32,  33,  34,  35,  36,  37,  38,  39,  40;  enforcing 
payment  of  bad  debt  claims,  35, 36,  37,  38,  43,  44,  45 ; 
Lodge  Resolution,  39 ;  interference  with  rights  of  sov- 
ereign states,  40 ;  heavy  responsibility  of  U.  S.  under, 
42,  47,  50,  52,  53,  108,  109;  U.  S.  made  international 
policeman,  42,  45,  48 ;  what  it  involves  from  two  points 
of  view,  42,  43,  44;  European  loans,  43,  44,  45,  46, 
47;  U.S.  made  international  mediator,  43,50;  invoked 
by  Guatemala,  46 ;  Roosevelt  outlines  new  bearing,  47, 
48,  49, 50,  51,  52 ;  U.  S.  not  obliged  to  prevent  pun- 
ishment for  torts,  50,  51 ;  contractual  obligations,  51 ; 
law  of  nations  broken,  53 ;  insulting  from  Latin-Amer- 
ican point  of  view,  54;  why  not  abandon?  55  ;  Latin- 
American  strength  proved,  55,  56,  57,  58,  59,  60,  61, 
62,  63,  64 ;  abandonment  necessary,  64 ;  imperialistic, 
64,  65 ;  Argentina's  attitude,  65,  67,  68 ;  Brazil's  atti- 
tude, 69  ;  arms  necessary  for  enforcement.  70 ;  Latin- 
American  criticisms  quoted,  70,  71,  72,  73,  74,  75, 
76,  77;  "Doctrine  of  absorption,"  71 ;  adverse  criti- 
cism in  Europe,  72,  73,  74;  Peru's  attitude,  73,  74, 
75,  86  ;  "outworn  shibboleth,"  77;  dangers  in  present 

C  '51   1 


INDEX 

tendency,  80,  81  ;  Root's  conciliatory  policy,  83,  84, 
85,  86  ;  a  selfish  policy  ?  89  ;  Asiatics  in  South  America, 
96;  selfish  point  of  view  argument,  97;  trade  affected 
by,  97,  98,  99  ;  circumvention  by  Germany  in  South 
America,  98,  99  ;  cost  to  U.  S.  if  adhered  to,  102,  103, 
104;  detrimental  to  world's  peace,  107  ;  possible  new 
policy  if  abandoned,  109,  112;  why  held  so  tenaciously, 
111  ;  hated  words  in  South  America,  112. 

NAPOLEON  III,  8. 

Naval  resources  of  Latin  America,  78,  79. 

Nicaragua,  Bluefields  incident,  30;  landing  U.  S.  troops 

in  1899,  33,  79;  present  financial  status,  45;  86. 
"North  American  Peril,"  73. 

OLNEY,  Secretary  Richard,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  18,  24,  30, 

43. 
Orinoco  River,  28. 

PAN-AMERICAN  Congress  (Rio  de  Janeiro),  83,  84. 

Pan-American  Scientific  Congress,  87,  88,  89,  110. 

Pan-Americanism,  18,  19,  20,  24,  68,  92. 

Pan-Hispanism,  22. 

Panama,  33,  34,  41,  69,  82. 

Panama  Canal,  34,  40;  tolls  question,  80,  92. 

Peace,  international,  104,  105,  107. 

Peru,  travel  in,  7;  attitude  to  U.  S.,  73,  74,  75,  76,  77; 

to  Monroe  Doctrine,  83,  86;  Chinese  in,  91,  92;  Jap- 

anese, 96;  products,  100. 
Phelps,  E.  J.,  15. 
Philippines,  31,  32. 
Polk,  President  James  K.  ,  7. 
Porto  Rico,  32,  41,  69,  79. 
Putumayo  atrocities,  7,  75,  76,  77. 

Rio  DE  JANEIRO  (Congress),  83. 
Ritz-Carlton  hotels,  57. 

Roosevelt,  President  Theodore,  35,  38,  39,  47,  49,  50, 
52,  67. 


c  152 


INDEX 

Root,  Secretary  Elihu,  4;  tour  of  South  America,  1906, 
34;  53 ;  87;  speech,  83,  99,  100,  101,  102,  103,  104, 
105,  106. 

Russia  and  Alaska,  6. 

SALISBURY,  Lord,  12, 13. 

Salvador,  trouble  at  U.  S.  Legation,  1890,  26. 

San  Antonio,  61. 

San  Diego,  27. 

Sanitation  in  Guayaquil,  82,  83. 

Santo  Domingo,  General  Grant's  action  concerning,  9, 
10;  U.  S.  intervention  in,  35,  36,  37,  41,  79,  86. 

Sao  Paulo,  Japanese,  in,  93. 

Seward,  Secretary  William  H.,  8,  9. 

South  America,  conditions,  ignorance  in  the  U.  S.  con- 
cerning, 8,  9,  18,  19,  57,  62,  63;  nearer  Europe  than 
U.S.,  18,  19,  20;  travel  conditions  in,  57;  partition 
of,  96. 

South  America  Society  in  Tokyo,  94. 

South  American  Journal  (financial  statistics) ,  61 . 

Spain,  war  with,  30,  32. 

Spanish  American  attitude  historically  unfriendly,  41. 

Spanish  American  War,  30,  31,  32. 

Spanish  comment,  78. 

Spoliation,  Act  of,  45. 

TAFT,  President  William  H . ,  40 , 6  7 ;  arbitration  treaties, 

80,81. 

Taxi-cabs  in  Buenos  Aires,  58. 
Texas,  79. 

Tierra  del  Fuego,  67. 
Trade,  international,  28;  in  South  America,  55,  56,  57, 

58, 59,  60 ;  friendly  feeling  necessary,  97,  98 ;  German 

monopoly  in  South  America,  98,  99 ;  increasing  value 

of  South  America,  99,  100,  101. 
Trans-Mississippi  Commercial  Congress  (Kansas  City), 

99. 


C 


INDEX 

UGARTE,  Manuel,  66,  67. 
Uruguay,  products,  100. 

VALPARAISO,  27,  61. 

Venezuela,  boundary  dispute,  11, 12,  17,  30;  U.  S.  war- 
ships sent,  1892,  28;  1899,  33;  U.  S.  intervention  in 
1902,34;  62. 

\VALEFFE,  Maurice  de,  72. 

Weyler,  General,  31. 

Woolsey,  Professor  T.  S.,  15, 16, 27. 

YANKEEISM,  "  75 .  m 

Yellow  fever,  82,  83. 
"Yellow  Peril,"  91,  93,  96. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


3  1205  00081    7880 


-. . .  i 


A     001  070  703     2 


